Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [LORDS]

Order for consideration read.

To be considered on thursday 16 March.

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second Time on Thursday 16 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Unemployment (Conwy)

Mrs. Betty Williams: If he will make a statement on the change in the level of unemployment in the Conwy constituency since May 1997. [112212]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Claimant unemployment in the Conwy parliamentary constituency has fallen by 341–14.3 per cent.—since the general election. Youth unemployment has fallen by 76 per cent. To secure our objective of high and stable employment, the Government will proceed on the basis of matching rights and responsibilities, creating new opportunities for work in return for obligations. The report by Lord Grabiner QC on the informal economy proposes to toughen sanctions against working in the hidden economy. At the same time, for the vast majority who are looking for work, we are considering more intensive coaching and help, where appropriate, with training, travel, transitional costs and child care.

Mrs. Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend. Hundreds of my constituents are grateful for the Labour Government's new deal and would condemn the Opposition for describing it as a colossal and expensive

failure. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give to show that he intends to build on the success of the new deal to achieve Labour's historic aim of full employment?

Mr. Brown: Even though youth unemployment has fallen by 68 per cent. in the constituency of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) says that the new deal is an expensive failure and that he would abolish it. In October, the Conservatives announced that they would privatise the Employment Service. Their policy would be bad for Conwy: in addition to abolishing the new deal, they would return the economy to boom and bust. The shadow Chancellor made Tory policy clear when he said that the Tories were
linked to harshness, thought to be uncaring about unemployment, poverty, poor housing. We were thought to favour greed.
That is, in fact, exactly the policy of the Tory party.

Manufacturing and Service Industries

Mr. Peter Brooke: What increases in manufacturing and service industry productivity were secured in the calendar years (a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [112213]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The service sector grew in those years respectively by 2.1 per cent., 1.7 per cent. and 0.7 per cent. The manufacturing sector grew by 0.7 per cent., minus 0.6 per cent. and 3.6 per cent. Whole-economy productivity growth including manufacturing and services per employee was 1.5 per cent., 1 per cent. and 1 per cent. Because whole-economy productivity during the 1980s and 1990s remained below that in the United States of America, France and Germany, we have instituted long-term measures for improvements in productivity—monetary and fiscal stability, a new competition policy matching innovative capital markets with a more favourable tax environment, and making Britain a skills centre for Europe with measures including labour market reforms.

Mr. Brooke: Since the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told me at Treasury questions last month that no one could be complacent about the figures, what would it take for the Chief Secretary to become actively dissatisfied?

Mr. Brown: I am the Chancellor, not the Chief Secretary, but, like my right hon. Friend, I was appalled by the Conservative Government's failure to improve productivity during the 1980s and 1990s. The Conservatives failed to institute a new competition policy that would mean lower prices and greater efficiency. We have created an independent Competition Commission, which, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman would support. We have instituted labour market reforms, emphasising skills that are desperately needed in the economy but which the Conservatives failed to provide. At the same time, we have instituted measures that mean that investment in the


economy is now 14.5 per cent.—a proportion of gross domestic product far above anything that the Conservatives achieved over 20 years.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: With productivity in mind, does my right hon. Friend regard sterling as competitive?

Mr. Brown: I have made it clear that we understand manufacturers and exporters worries about sterling. In relation to the dollar, sterling has remained virtually unchanged over several years, but developments in the euro area have created difficulties for exporters. However, exporters and manufacturers to whom I have talked most fear a return to the policies adopted by the Conservatives—the policies that brought stop-go and boom and bust.
Let us not forget that the shadow Chancellor was at the Treasury when, in the recession of the early 1990s, 2 million jobs were lost in the British economy. While he was at the Department of Employment, unemployment—on the claimant count—never fell below 2.3 million; it is now 1.1 million. Youth unemployment during the right hon. Gentleman's spell there was 300,000; and it is now 50,000. We favour creating jobs; the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister for unemployment.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the Chancellor accept that any increases in productivity that British industry is likely to achieve will be insufficient to overcome the problem of an overvalued exchange rate, which is itself largely caused by our high interest rate policy?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should look at the figures: manufacturing productivity is rising by 3.6 per cent. He should congratulate the manufacturing sector of the economy on its response to what is happening. Equally, he should look at the amount of business investment in the economy, which is more than £100 billion, and has risen from the maximum of slightly more than 12 per cent. of gross domestic product under the Conservatives to more than 14 per cent. under Labour. We are making the long-term changes that will give higher productivity in the economy. The Conservatives had 20 years to do so, and they failed.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the steel industry is the most productive manufacturing industry in our country at present? However, it is encountering tough problems because of the high value of the pound. The steel workers at Shotton, who in 1980 suffered Europe's biggest redundancy, are anxious—as are those in other steel plants throughout Wales—about a statement by Corus, the new steel company, that no job and no plant is safe. The steel workers know that the strength of the pound and the merger are putting pressure on jobs. My right hon. Friend helped over the climate levy for the steel industry—in the same positive way, what he might do to enable the export of steel?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is a constant supporter of the steel industry in his constituency and throughout the country. I, too, have talked to representatives of the steel workers union and

shall continue to hold discussions with them. I appreciate the problems that the exchange rate has given them. They have told me that they do not want to return to boom and bust—as happened under the Conservatives. Not only are there more jobs in Wales as a result of action taken by this Government, but there are now 800,000 more jobs throughout the whole economy. More people are in work than ever before as a result of stability and the measures in the new deal. The stop-go policies of the Opposition and their opposition to the new deal put that at risk.

Tax Burden

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: What his projection is of the tax burden for 2001–02 measured as a percentage of GDP. [112214]

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: If he will make a statement on the number of quarters since May 1997 in which the percentage of GDP taken by the Government in tax over the previous 12 months has risen. [112217]

Mr. Graham Brady: What estimate he has made of the net increase in the amount of tax that will be paid in the five financial years from 1997–98 to 2001–02 as a result of his Budget measures to date. [112218]

Mr. Edward Leigh: What projection he has made of the tax burden as a percentage of GDP in 2001–02; and if he will make a statement on the change in the tax burden since 1996–97. [112219]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): As a result of last year's Budget, the tax:GDP ratio is lower this year than last year. The tax ratio in the two following years will also be lower than last year. Under the previous Government's plans, those rates would have been higher than the latest projections—not only in this year but in both of the next two years.

Mrs. Lait: Is not the Chief Secretary aware that, since his Government came into office, the overall tax burden has risen? The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has said that—as have the Office for National Statistics, the House of Commons Library, his own Red Book, the pre-Budget statement and the Fabian Society. In today's papers, Chantrey Vellacott has said it. Is not it time that the right hon. Gentleman gritted his teeth and, on behalf of the Chancellor, admitted that the tax burden has risen?

Mr. Smith: I keep giving the Conservatives the figures, but they do not seem to listen. Last year, the tax burden was 37.4 per cent. This year, it is 37 per cent. Next year, it is due to fall to 36.8 per cent. on the measures to date. That is a tax burden that is falling, not rising.

Mr. O'Brien: Returning to the precise figures, the ONS pointed out that the tax burden has risen in all but two quarters since Labour came to power. In the two quarters when it did not actually rise, it remained the same. Last year, the Prime Minister said that
it is clear, as the figures show, that the tax burden is falling.—[Official Report, 24 November 1999; Vol. 339. c. 609.]


Will the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary explain what the Prime Minister was talking about when he made that statement?

Mr. Smith: I am tempted, in the interests of accuracy, to repeat to the hon. Gentleman the figures that I have just given. However, for his interest, I shall give him another set of figures that reflect the burden as it actually impacts on a typical family. The figures show that, when we came to office, the take was 21.5 per cent.; it then fell to 20.9 per cent.; this year it is due to fall to 20.4 per cent.; and next year it will be 18.9 per cent. Again, from the vantage point of the families who pay tax, that means less tax with Labour.

Mr. Brady: I suspect that the Chief Secretary's figures do not include all the stealth tax increases and the indirect taxes that have been piled on time after time. Is it not pathetic that the Government have to rely on semantics? When they are asked the straight question whether the tax burden has risen while they have been in office, they say that it is falling. Can they give the straight answer that the tax burden has risen, and will they stop relying on their own flimsy projections for what might happen in the future?

Mr. Smith: I do not have to rely on any flimsy projections; none of our projections are flimsy. Let me give the hon. Gentleman the flimsy projections that his Government were making before they left office. They said that, under their plans, tax under the Tories would have been 37.1 per cent. this year; it is lower with Labour. Next year, it would have been 37.6 per cent.; it will be lower with Labour. The year after that, it would have been 38 per cent.; with Labour the present projection is 37.2 per cent. In each and every case, our performance compared with the Conservative's projections shows a lower take in tax. We will not be lectured by Conservative Members, who broke every promise that they made on tax and imposed the 22 Tory tax increases and the boom and bust economics that did such damage to our economy. If they ever got the chance again, they would wreck the record rising living standards that we are now seeing in this country.

Mr. Leigh: Does the Chief Secretary recall that his former hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), said:
We haven't increased the top rate of tax or the standard rate of tax, but we have increased a lot of other taxes … we have done it with all these stealth taxes. I just think it would have been better to have honestly told people beforehand?
Is not the truth of the matter that the Prime Minister told the British people at the general election that he would not increase taxes? He has increased taxes and every person in this Chamber is paying at least £1,500 more in tax than they were at the last general election. His candidate is 55 points behind the independent candidate for mayor because people are fed up with these lies; they want some truth.

Mr. Smith: The truth of the matter is that, unlike the Conservative party, we have kept each and every promise that we made on tax. We promised not to raise the basic or top rates of income tax throughout the next parliament. We have not and we will not. We said that we would

bring in a lower starting rate of income tax of 10p in the pound, and we have. We said that we would cut VAT on fuel to 5 per cent.—the lowest level allowed—when the Conservatives put it up. We said that we would not extend VAT to food, children's clothes, books, newspapers and public transport fares, and we have not and will not. We said that we would bring in, with the windfall levy on the excess profits of the privatised utilities, welfare-to-work programmes and the new deals that have helped this country get 800,000 more people into jobs. They are all gains for hard-working families in this country that the Tories would take away.

Kali Mountford: Is it not right that where the tax burden falls is just as important as the overall tax take? Is it not right that the tax burden should not fall on those who can afford it least? A low starting rate of tax encourages people back to work and helps the economy, so it is good for Britain and good for taxpayers.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is quite right. As a consequence of the changes that we have brought in, families with children are, on average, £740 a year better off. Moreover, thanks to steady growth, low inflation, stability, the introduction of the minimum wage and the working families tax credit—measures in which the Government take pride—the real take-home pay of average families in this country rose faster last year than at almost any time for the past quarter of a century. That is the measure of the extent to which this Government are on the side of hard-working families, whereas Conservative Members put the whole future of those families at risk.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us in the House and in the country would not give a monkey's if the tax burden went up to 40 per cent., provided that the money went on the national health service, pensioners and the welfare state generally? I have a Budget proposal: we should put another tax—we can call it a stealth tax, if we like—on the Tories' outside earnings, and then we would hear them squeal.

Mr. Smith: All Budget representations to the Chancellor are very carefully considered.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the only people in this country paying less tax in May 1997 than in 1979 were those earning over £64,000 a year? We will therefore take no lectures on fair taxation from the Conservative party. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Conservative party has put forward a tax guarantee that it contradicts in the Chamber, week after week, by making additional spending pledges? Will he therefore make available the Treasury's computer model for the Conservatives' alternative Budget this year, so that the public can properly, rigorously and honestly work out the benefits and costs of their policies?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend indeed raises the £64,000 question. He is absolutely right to say that Conservative Members talk of the so-called Tory tax guarantee, which their former Prime Minister called mad and their former Chancellor of the Exchequer said was inoperable. The truth, as my hon. Friend said, is that it is not a Tory


tax cuts guarantee, but a Tory NHS cuts guarantee, because it would put at risk the very welfare services that my hon. Friend rightly commends.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the rise in gross domestic product that is forecast for next year, combined with the cut in the percentage of taxation, means not only that people will be better off as a result of the lower tax take, but that overall, as a result of the growth in the economy which the Government have achieved, they will be substantially better off in real terms under Labour?

Mr. Smith: Indeed, I have already said that last year people experienced the biggest real increase in take-home pay for a quarter of a century. I am confident that the Government's policies for stability, growth and economic responsibility and for getting people into jobs mean that during this Parliament we will see, as my hon. Friend says, a significantly bigger real increase in take-home pay than was achieved, on average, in the Tory years.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Chief Secretary agree with the Prime Minister's comment in Question Time, that on coming to office Labour put up taxes to tackle the deficit left by Conservative mismanagement of the economy? That deficit was built on when the Conservative Treasury team, of which the shadow Chancellor was a member, mismanaged the economy in the early 1990s and forgot Baroness Thatcher's advice when she was Prime Minister that one cannot spend money that one does not have. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should listen to the previous Conservative Chancellor, who admitted that borrowing a deficit of that size was simply taxation deferred.
Having put that right, does the Chief Secretary now accept that the issue in the forthcoming Budget is whether he uses the benefit to cut tax or to invest in hospitals, schools and a decent increase in the pension, rather than the miserly 75p provided?

Mr. Smith: No.

Ms Sally Keeble: With Mothers' day coming up in a couple of weeks, does my right hon. Friend agree that the shift in the tax burden under the Government represents a clear shift from wallet to purse? With the children's tax credit, the child care tax credit and the record increases in child benefit, people will be able to choose between a Government with a commitment to families, and in particular to working women and mothers, and the Opposition, who would strip most of those benefits away.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. The measures that we have taken have been of enormous benefit to working families. They have helped working women and working mothers, and we will continue to follow those policies during and after the Budget.

Mr. Michael Portillo: When we last had Question Time, I got the impression that the Chancellor had not got the hang of Question Time at all. While I was willing to make straightforward statements about Conservative policy, he was not willing to answer any questions. Is it not astonishing that today, when we

have four questions on the basis of Government policy—the tax burden—and so much interest in the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not answer the questions himself?
The Chief Secretary must begin by admitting that the Government are not publishing the figures that tell us the total burden of taxation—all taxes on families. Why is he withholding that information from the House and the British public?
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about the taxes that he is imposing on ordinary people. Why does he intend to abolish the married couples allowance and increase the tax on married people by £200? Their only sin is that they are married. Why does he intend to abolish mortgage interest relief and increase the tax on home owners by £225 a year, when their only sin is that they have saved for their houses? Why is he to make people who drive cars pay £178 more in petrol? Does he not know that those people have to drive their children to school and drive to work? Why has he taxed pensions, making people—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must understand that this is not a debate. There are other hon. Members who wish to ask questions.

Mr. Portillo: The Chancellor likes to claim to be the Iron Chancellor, but he is merely a Labour Chancellor. He increases taxes like every other Labour Chancellor, but instead of being straightforward, he does it by stealth, and instead of taxing the rich, he taxes ordinary people who serve and try to do the right thing.

Mr. Smith: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will get the hang of it, given time. I am surprised that with all his experience, he did not have the dexterity to come in on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on questions 1 and 2, when he had every opportunity to question him. I am surprised, too, that the right hon. Gentleman has not learned to make his questions rather more pointed.
If there was ever a case of the Portillo trying to call the kettle black, that was it. The right hon. Gentleman was responsible for 22 Tory tax increases. It was he who was responsible for the biggest cut in the married couples allowance. He said at the time that the allowance appeared to be the most anomalous given to people, whether or not they were in work. He continued:
I doubt that the reduction to be made in the first year … could be held to be crucial for those deciding whether they should be married.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 22 February 1994; c. 347.]
The right hon. Gentleman was the architect of the 22 Tory tax rises. He was the one who put VAT on fuel. He was the one who started cutting the married couples allowance. He was the one who put up national insurance. We have no lessons to learn from him on tax.

Mr. Portillo: Well, yes, the Conservatives did put up some taxes, and we paid a heavy price for it. The Labour Opposition criticised us at the time, so why are they putting up taxes now they are in government? Why are they taxing ordinary people on marriage, pensions, savings and petrol? Why are our public services getting no better? Why were 57,000 operations cancelled last


year? Why are people waiting a day and a half on trolleys in hospitals? Why has the number of policemen been cut by 1,700? Why is crime rising? Why are a Government who promised us that we would pay less and get more making us pay more, yet we are getting less?

Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is not getting the hang of it very quickly. With a record of driving through 22 Tory tax increases, and having been one of those responsible for the policy of boom and bust, the people of this country will never trust him and the Conservative party on tax or public spending.
Next year, the burden on the typical family will be at its lowest level since 1972. Our management of the economy and public finances puts £40 billion extra into health and education to repair the damage that the Conservative party inflicted when it was in government. People are better off with Labour. Conservative party promises to end the new deal and reverse the working families tax credit would return us to boom and bust, stop-go economics and damage the prosperity of the people of this country, whereas this Government have achieved the fastest rise in living standards for a quarter of a century.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report, which shows the distributional impact of post-tax income since 1997? It underlines not only his point that there are major increases in the take-home pay of the average family, but shows major increases in the pay of the majority of families, including the bottom 90 per cent. Does not that show that Britain is richer and fairer under Labour, through more take-home pay, more jobs and lower inflation?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. Unlike the Conservative party, the Labour Government care about the low paid—that is why we introduced the minimum wage. We care about working families—that is why we introduced the working families tax credit. As my hon. Friend said, thanks to our management of the economy and our policies for fairness as well as for enterprise, those on half of average earnings will receive as big an increase in real take-home pay in this Parliament as they received in all the Parliaments of the previous Administration.

IR35 (IT Contractors)

Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on his recent discussions with IT contractors' representatives on IR35. [112215]

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I met representatives of the professional contractors group in December. I explained to them why the Government believe that it is necessary to prevent avoidance of tax and national insurance contributions by workers using personal service companies.

Dr. Cable: What advice has the Minister received from the Prime Minister's adviser on e-commerce, who has publicly expressed his disquiet about the impact of the tax on our knowledge-based industry? How does the Inland Revenue propose to treat the tens of thousands of

IT contractors, who are honest and do not avoid taxation, but have great difficulty in distinguishing between employed and self-employed status, as they are now required to do, because of the complexities of IT contracts?

Dawn Primarolo: First, it is not true that the e-commerce envoy has been making representations to the Treasury about relaxing the rules. He made it clear that he supports the Government's policy of stopping unfair tax and national insurance avoidance.
Secondly, IR35 deals with avoidance in cases in which one employee in a company avoids tax and national insurance. That means that such employees do not pay tax and national insurance, which are paid by other people who are self-employed or on pay-as-you-earn pay. The hon. Gentleman should explain why he is prepared to support a group of workers whose companies their own advisers describe as tax havens. Why should they be allowed to continue to cheat honest taxpayers?

Ms Julia Drown: A small IT business in my constituency has told me that it fears that it will not be able to survive and continue to prosper under the new IR35 rules. Will my hon. Friend liaise with colleagues in the Government to ensure that the Inland Revenue and the Small Business Service work with such companies to ensure that they can continue to be successful?

Dawn Primarolo: Frightening and undermining the legitimacy of the many hundreds of thousands of legitimate companies that operate as service companies is part of the scare tactics of those who seek to avoid tax by using service companies. The Inland Revenue continues to advise those companies that will be caught by the rules through a helpline and a comprehensive website. We are ensuring that honest taxpayers will be strengthened by the rules, not undermined, and that people compete on skills, not by using the rules only for tax advantage, as the few are doing.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Is it not clear from yesterday's written answers that the Minister has absolutely no idea of the damage that IR35 is causing to the knowledge-driven economy? The Government's manifesto at the last election said that they would
Give Britain's entrepreneurs and small businesses the backing they deserve.
Instead, we have IR35—a stealth tax introduced by the back door. The result is uncertainty over self-employed status, a lot of competitiveness and a brain drain to more stable tax systems. Did not the biggest gaffe come from the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce, who said that she would use a recent visit to the United States to try to woo back British expats? Looking at the chaos caused by IR35, who in his right mind would come back to this mess? It is pain without gain.

Dawn Primarolo: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman needs to be reminded of everything that the Government have done for small businesses: the small business company rate cut; the new 10p corporation tax starting rate; first-year capital allowances; enterprise management incentives; and help through the Small Business Service. He still has not told the House why his party supports a few workers who use their companies to avoid paying


tax when millions of others pay their tax. I direct him to Computer Contractor magazine of October 1999. Under the headline "Make hay while the sun shines", it said:
Beg, borrow or steal to avoid paying higher tax rates this year. Next year you will not be able to avoid it. You should recognise that your company … is a tax haven.
He has to realise that, as we have rules in the system for self-employed and PAYE employees, it is not unreasonable to expect those few who are avoiding the rules to comply with them.

EU Markets

Ms Dari Taylor: If he will make a statement on the importance of markets in the European Union to firms in the north-east. [112220]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): It is estimated that 14,500—one in three—small and medium-sized enterprises in the north-east have links with Europe. Government policy towards the euro is to prepare and decide. Today I am placing in the House of Commons Library and publishing the second draft national changeover plan. The euro standing committee, which includes the Governor of the Bank of England and the president of the Confederation of British Industry, met on Tuesday and discussed the draft changeover plan. In the draft plan that we are publishing today, which is in the Vote Office, we itemise and update the preparations being made.

Ms Taylor: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on the priority that the Government give to the changeover preparations. Will he acknowledge that more than 500 jobs in my constituency rely on a good and positive relationship with the euro? In the northern region, the figure goes up to 150,000 jobs, so it is very significant to us. Will he also acknowledge that business in the north-east sees the Tories' anti-European stance as undermining jobs and investment?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I much enjoyed my visit to her constituency this week, when I met many business men and women who know the importance of our constructive links with the European Union, and know how many firms depend on the continuation of that trade.
Three million jobs depend on our links with the EU. As my hon. Friend said, our policy on the euro is consistent with our making preparations and decisions, and subjecting that policy to the economic tests that we have laid down. Unfortunately, even if it were in the national interest for us to join the euro, the Conservative party would refuse to do so for reasons of dogma.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: By how much does the Chancellor want sterling to fall from its present level against the euro?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we do not comment on the individual movements of sterling. He also knows that I appreciate the concerns of exporters and manufacturers about what has been happening in the euro area in relation to sterling—but the manufacturers to whom I talk in the north-east know that

the greatest danger would be posed to them by action to return our economy to the stop-go, boom-and-bust policies of the bad old days.

Working Families Tax Credit (Scotland)

Mr. Desmond Browne: How many claims for working families tax credit have been received from Scotland since its introduction. [112221]

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The number of claims for working families tax credit received from Scotland is not readily available, but it is estimated that 67,000 families in Scotland had been awarded it by the end of January 2000.

Mr. Browne: That means that 67,000 families in Scotland are better off by an average of £1,250 a year than they were last year.
As my hon. Friend will know from Government statistics, my constituents are among the lowest paid in the country, with an average wage of £71 a week. That statistic and others suggest that many families in my constituency who qualify for working families tax credit do not claim it. Will my hon. Friend undertake a second phase of publicity before the new credits are introduced in April, so that those families can obtain the information that they need—information that would make a difference to their lives, and help them to lift themselves and their children out of poverty?

Dawn Primarolo: I am sure the House is shocked to learn that £71 a week is the average wage in my hon. Friend's constituency. That demonstrates the importance of the Government's policies on the national minimum wage and working families tax credit, and our reforms of national insurance, to low-paid workers who want to raise their incomes.
We naturally want to ensure maximum take-up of working families tax credit. As my hon. Friend probably knows, about 60,000 children have already benefited from the Budget measures, but I will look carefully at the rate of take-up, and will consider what my hon. Friend has said about the need for further publicity to ensure that all who are entitled to working families tax credit receive it.

Mr. John Bercow: Why does the Paymaster General not accept the verdict of Filip de Kam, a tax expert from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, who argues that the Government are breaching international accounting conventions by describing working families tax credit as a tax cut when in fact it constitutes a hike in public expenditure? Is the hon. Lady proud of the fact that more than 50 per cent. of the cost of compliance with the WFTC—which is a recurring cost—is to be borne by small businesses, including small businesses in Scotland that have already been savaged by this Government, which employ fewer than 100 people?

Dawn Primarolo: First, the hon. Gentleman is wrong to assert that the Government are breaching OECD rules. Secondly, he is entirely wrong in what he says about the benefits involved. This is the man who opposed the introduction of the minimum wage and said that it would


be a disaster; what would he know about helping low-income families? Thirdly, as the Government have made clear, the burdens on small business have been reduced by the many changes that we have made to assist it, and by what we have done to support the few small businesses that may have an employee in receipt of working families tax credit.
We should keep this in proportion. For the smallest businesses, the maximum burden amounts to six minutes a week, and is far outweighed by the benefits in terms of recruitment and a stable and satisfied work force.

Climate Change Levy

Mr. David Chaytor: What responses he has received to the changes that he announced in his pre-Budget report to the proposed climate change levy. [112222]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): The refinements to the design of the climate change levy announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in November will further both our aims for the levy: to increase its environmental effectiveness, while protecting the competitiveness of UK firms. Those changes were welcomed by both business leaders and environmental groups.

Mr. Chaytor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. First, does he think that we now have the right balance between the need to protect the environment and the need to support industry? Secondly and quite specifically, will he look again at the operation of the combined heat and power exemption, particularly the definition of what constitutes high-quality CHP, as I understand that there is a debate about that?

Mr. Timms: The climate change levy forms an important part of our climate change programme, which, as my hon. Friend may know, is published today. One feature of the package in the pre-Budget report that has been particularly welcomed has been the trebling of support for business energy-efficiency measures, including combined heat and power. That underlines our determination to tackle the huge challenge of climate change, but to do so in partnership with business and other interested parties.
We are getting the balance right. We are consulting on the right definition for good-quality combined heat and power systems. It is important that we get it right and provide incentives for the right type of power generation. I will look carefully at the responses to the consultation when it is completed.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Why are the Government persisting with that damaging energy tax, which will be levied on all firms, whatever their size, in all sections of industry? Will the Minister confirm that the same firms that will have money taken off them through the tax are being blocked from installing gas-fired electricity generating plant, which would itself reduce carbon dioxide emissions and counter the threat of global warming? Why do not the Government start to practise joined-up government, instead of just talking about it? As usual, it is all talk and no delivery.
To put that contradiction beyond dispute, will the Minister confirm the fact—the calculation has been made by the House of Commons Library—that the entire carbon dioxide saving that is hoped for under that tax could be achieved simply by permitting those firms to generate electricity through gas-fired plant, which would render the entire tax, with all its expense and complexity, completely unnecessary?

Mr. Timms: I can certainly reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are delivering the climate change levy. The problem of climate change is huge and a major programme is required to tackle it. That is why we are publishing the programme today. It makes it clear that the climate change levy will make an important contribution to achieving our Kyoto targets. It will save 2 million tonnes of carbon a year by 2010, and there will be at least as much again in negotiated agreements. That is a big contribution towards meeting our objectives. The right hon. Gentleman asks about the stricter consents policy. That policy addresses entirely different issues about the security and diversity of UK energy supply. Both policies are right.

Mr. David Taylor: How would my hon. Friend compare the energy tax rates in the UK with those of our main competitors in the European Union, and what impact might such rates have?

Mr. Timms: Many other EU countries have introduced carbon or energy taxes—eight of them so far. France and Belgium are working up their proposals at the moment. My hon. Friend asks about the rate of the climate change levy. The headline rate is around the middle of the rates in the eight EU states that have already introduced such taxes, so we are about in the middle.

Taxation

Mr. Philip Hammond: What estimate he has made of the incremental amount of tax that will be paid in the next financial year as a result of measures announced since 1 May 1997. [112224]

Mr. Tim Boswell: How much extra tax will be paid per annum as a result of his Budget measures to date. [112225]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): All changes to the tax system are included in the relevant Budget reports, which are publicly available. As a result of those Budgets, the direct tax rate on an average family with children will fall below 20 per cent. for the first time since 1979, and will be at its lowest level since 1972.

Mr. Hammond: The Chief Secretary focuses on direct taxes, of course. Is it not a fact that, if the total tax burden as a percentage of GDP had remained at the 1996–97 level—which applied before the general election and before the Chancellor started introducing his stealth taxes—in the coming financial year, the British people


would pay £15 billion less in tax? Is that not the truth that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister will go to any lengths to try to conceal from the British people?

Mr. Smith: No. Conservative Members are the last people who should focus on indirect taxes—they are the ones who put VAT on fuel, in breach of their election promises. The hon. Gentleman would do well to heed the advice of the shadow Chancellor, who, on 20 September, said:
Conservatives have become increasingly connected with uncaring social attitudes, selfish behaviour and sleaze. It is not easy for the party to strike the right tone. Of course it should be apologetic for mismanaging the economy.
However much they apologise, their record will not escape them.

Mr. Boswell: Is it not remarkable that, whereas other Ministers are so keen on adjectives such as "new", "modern", and even "joined-up", Treasury Ministers become sensitive—they dislike it—when a particular noun is used in relation to tax changes, which are otherwise commonly known as "tax increases"? For the sake of argument, let us call them tax changes. Will the Chief Secretary tell us what assessment he has made of the impact on ordinary people of those tax changes? What is the effect, for example, of an annual petrol tax hike of £178 on people in rural areas and on heads of families on the national minimum wage? What is the impact on pensioners with incomes below the income support level, but who have small savings incomes, whose payable tax credits have been withdrawn?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman should remember who it was who introduced the automatic petrol tax escalator, which we have now abandoned. Who was it who imposed VAT on fuel, which did the damage to pensioners? The answer to his question is that families with children are £740 a year better off as a consequence of our tax changes.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Many of my constituents are paying more tax than they were prior to May 1997, and they are doing so because they are earning a great deal more than they were prior to May 1997. Would my right hon. Friend like to take the opportunity to congratulate some of the high-tech entrepreneurs in my constituency—such as Mike Lynch, of Autonomy—who have done so well with the economic stability that the Government have created?

Mr. Smith: Yes, I do join my hon. Friend in congratulating those high-tech and other firms in her constituency, and across the country, that are making an investment in, and success of, the crucial sphere of the knowledge economy and high-tech industries. We have been helping those companies by cutting corporation tax to the lowest level. We are also helping them by introducing research and development incentives and the management enterprise initiative, and by operating the economy so that there is stability, enabling businesses to plan and invest with confidence for the future.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in 1949, the great socialist Government of Clement Attlee cut income tax by 10p in the pound,

and that, in 1951, the average industrial-wage worker with a family of two had to earn 107 per cent. of industrial wages before he paid any tax? In today's terms, that would be about £22,000. Although I do not invite my right hon. Friend to put that in the Budget, will he move in the general, socialist direction of cutting taxes, letting workers have more money to spend from their wages?

Mr. Smith: Yes indeed. As I said earlier, all Budget representations are carefully considered. The good socialist record of the Labour party in ensuring fair and low taxes is commendable, and stands in stark contrast to the record of the Conservatives, who were responsible for the highest tax burden in the past century when they took the tax take above 39 per cent. We shall not follow that example.

Mr. Howard Flight: Will the Minister stop trying to conceal the truth about tax increases? As he well knows, the Government's Red Book figures show a 2 per cent. increase over this Parliament. If we count the fiddle on the working families tax credit, that becomes 2.5 per cent. The latest wheeze is to quote figures on average families that exclude the increases in indirect taxes. Ordinary people well know that their taxes have gone up, while the health and education services that they receive have declined. They are paying more and getting less. The Prime Minister has—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. It is about time that I heard a question.

Mr. Flight: Will the Government at last come clean on taxes, before we have to apply the same edict when referring to them as the Prime Minister has applied to all references to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone): stop using the "L" word and call him untrustworthy?

Mr. Smith: I shall give the figures again. Last year, the tax take was 37.4 per cent. of gross domestic product. This year it is 37 per cent. Next year, on present measures, it is projected to be 36.8 per cent. That is a falling tax burden, not a rising one. Coupled with the record increases in real take-home pay, it is a conclusive demonstration that people are better off with Labour.

Job Creation (London)

Mr. Andrew Love: What is his estimate of the number of jobs created in London since May 1997. [112227]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): The UK economy is continuing to expand and create new employment. Since the general election, 140,000 new jobs have been created in London.

Mr. Love: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate the Government on their success in creating a vibrant economy in the capital. In the past year, unemployment in my constituency has gone down by 7 per cent. and the latest estimate is that around 150,000 new jobs will be created in the coming year. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the very unlikely event of the Conservatives being returned at the next general election,


they would squander that golden legacy of the past three years with a return to the boom and bust of the 1980s and early 1990s?

Miss Johnson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about what would happen were the Conservatives to be returned at the next general election. He talked about their record of boom and bust and the two recessions for which they were responsible. Almost 2 million jobs were lost in the UK during the recession in the 1980s and a similar number were lost in the 1990s recession. The Conservatives would abolish the new deal, which has so benefited my hon. Friend's constituency, as well as those of many Conservative Members. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) has seen a fall of nearly 64 per cent. in youth unemployment in his constituency as a result of Government policies that he does not support and would end.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Does the hon. Lady agree that the ability of the economy in London to create and sustain prosperity and jobs depends on a low-tax regime from local and national government? Will she assure the House that the withholding tax on the savings income of European Union citizens in the City of London will be vetoed, so that it goes away for good? Why has the Paymaster General not published the report

on so-called unfair tax competition, which she drafted at the behest of the European Union? The competitiveness of the City of London depends on a highly favourable tax regime, which many in the European Union would like to destroy.

Miss Johnson: My hon. Friend the Paymaster General has indeed published the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred and it is now in the public domain. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on just one of the points that he made. We continue to defend Britain's interests in the matter of the withholding tax, as we said we would do. I share the hon. Gentleman's views on that, but with regard to the economy in London, I remind him that there have been 800,000 new jobs across the country, 140,000 of which are in London, and that a record 3.3 million people are employed in London. I can attribute that only to the Government's excellent policies—the new deal, the national minimum wage, the working families tax credit—which provide the right framework for job creation through stability and meeting our inflation target. The hon. Gentleman should look at the record of his own party and ask himself how it was that the Tories presided over so much unemployment and so many periods of boom and bust. Who would trust the Tories again with the economy? The British people know that the Labour party and the Labour Government can be trusted to run UK plc.

Business of the House

Sir George Young: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 13 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill.
TUESDAY 14 MARCH—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill.
At 10 o'clock the House will be asked to agree the spring supplementary estimates, supplementary vote on account, excess votes and defence votes A.
WEDNESDAY 15 MARCH—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No.2) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Terrorism Bill.
Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary, Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order.
THURSDAY 16 MARCH—Opposition Day [8th Allotted Day]. Until about 4 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "The Government's Handling of the Mozambique Crisis" followed by a debate entitled "The Protection of Green Fields and the Imposition of House Building Targets". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
FRIDAY 17 MARCH—Debate on safeguards for children on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 20 MARCH—Second Reading of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.
TUESDAY 21 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 22 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
THURSDAY 23 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 24 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 27 MARCH—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of the business for the following week. Following my comments last week, I am grateful for the additional time that the Government have found for the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. The other place has debated the Wakeham report, but there is still no sign of progress at this end of the building. When will we get the promised Joint Committee on which the Government appear to be dragging their feet? When will we have the opportunity to debate the Wakeham report—a debate during which we hope the Government will clarify whether peerages are offered to so-called opposition parties on condition that they do not oppose?
Has the right hon. Lady had time to read the excellent report of the Liaison Committee on shifting the balance between Select Committees and the Executive? Does she agree that we should debate it on the Floor of the House? Does she recall that we still have not debated the Procedure Committee report on scrutinising public expenditure?
The right hon. Lady has confirmed the date of the Budget and the four-day debate. Can she tell us when the Finance Bill will be published? Are not our debates on the economy and public expenditure a bit like buses? We do not see one for months and then four come along at the same time. Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that the incidence of economic and public expenditure debates throughout the year is satisfactory?
Finally, so that members of staff can plan their lives, has the right hon. Lady anything interesting to say about the dates of the Whitsun recess?

Mrs. Beckett: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. The Government have indeed found the extra time he asked for last week for the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, and I am grateful to him for acknowledging that. He asked me last week about the possibility of a debate on the Wakeham report and the setting up of a Joint Committee, and I made the point to him then—and I am afraid that I can only reiterate it—that of course the Government have to give priority to their legislative programme and will do so. That means that at present I cannot give him a date for that debate.
The right hon. Gentleman suggests that there is some evidence of a deal being done in terms of behaviour in the House in return for peerages. First, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made plain yesterday, he has given more peerages already to the Liberal Democrats than did the previous Prime Minister. [Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members making those noises. We all know that the creation of peerages is within the patronage of the Prime Minister, and this one is the first to give any of it up. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has only to look at the voting record in the House of Lords to see that it shows no evidence of any kind of deal.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about a debate on the Floor of the House about the Liaison Committee report. Like the Lords debate, that will have to wait, but it is a matter to which the Government will give serious consideration, because it is a weighty and serious report. Similarly, I am aware of the need at some point to debate the Procedure Committee's report.
I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the date of the publication of the Finance Bill, but I hope to do so shortly. I take heed of his remarks about the balance of economic and public expenditure debates. I fear that I cannot give him the dates for the Whitsun recess either, although I can confirm that we will not sit on the bank holiday.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we debate the important research that has been published in the past few weeks in Nature from scientists in south Carolina, London and Aberdeen, which proves that cannabis products can relieve the symptoms of multiple sclerosis in minutes? Another group of scientists have found proof that cannabinoids can destroy brain tumours that remain unaffected by conventional treatment such as chemotherapy. Those discoveries should cause us to end


the practice of persecuting those desperately ill people who use cannabis—we should certainly stop jailing them, as happened last year in two cases. Cannot we at least say that we will do that now for people who tell us that it has been their experience for years that cannabis alleviates the worst symptoms of MS, and who want a night's sleep tonight—not in five years' time when the Government finally agree?

Madam Speaker: Order. This is a time for questions.

Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend has long taken a great and close interest in that subject, but he will know that the Government have licensed projects to assess the scientific value of the medicinal use of cannabis, and when their results are available the Government will take due account of them.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Some of us are concerned that there has been no statement today from the Secretary of State for Defence on the apparent major leak in the security systems of NATO. Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that as soon as all the information is available—which I understand will be over the weekend—we will have a statement on Monday from the Secretary of State? It is clearly not enough to have Mr. Jamie Shea of NATO make a statement on the "Today" programme, but to have no response whatever to the legitimate concerns, both inside and outside the House, that our pilots may have been put at risk and the war unnecessarily lengthened by the leak.
I endorse the Conservative view that an early debate on the Wakeham report is now necessary in order to establish precisely what the Government's intentions are. In particular, will the Leader of the House tell us whether it is the Government's policy, as apparently enunciated by the Leader of the House of Lords, that
any proposal totally to elect a second Chamber under the mistaken view that it would increase the democratic base of Parliament would in fact undermine that democracy.?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 2000; Vol. 610, c. 914.]
That is an extraordinary statement.

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot give the undertaking that the hon. Gentleman seeks on a statement from the MOD about the stories in today's papers, which stem clearly from the trailing of a BBC programme. That is a perfectly legitimate thing for the BBC to do, but it is quite another matter to assume that it requires a statement to the House. In any case, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in Argentina, and hardly could be here simultaneously.
The hon. Gentleman asked for an early debate on the Wakeham report. He will recall that Lord Wakeham himself suggested that people should take time to give mature consideration to the report's proposals, rather than rushing to judgment.
As for the remark of my noble Friend about an elected Upper House undermining the nature of our democracy in this country, I take that to be a reference to the inevitable conflict which would occur between a wholly elected upper House and this House. That is a view that many will share.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Can my right hon. Friend confirm something that has been puzzling me—that she has, so far, received no request from the Opposition for a debate on the national minimum wage to explain their latest thinking on the subject? If there were an opportunity for such a debate, could we have it in Government time on a simple motion, inviting the House to support the way in which Her Majesty's Government introduced the minimum wage in the teeth of Tory opposition? We could then test the sincerity of the Tories' view by seeing whether they would join us in the Lobby.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a strong point, and raises an attractive proposition. He will recall that, in 1997, the present shadow Chancellor said that the minimum wage was an "immoral" policy. Last month, he said that the next Tory Government would not repeal it. My hon. Friend is entirely right to think that those are two mutually exclusive propositions which are worthy of debate. However, I fear that one of the little luxuries that we must deny ourselves at the moment is that of exploring the contradictions in the Opposition's position, which are many.

Sir John Stanley: Will the right hon. Lady arrange an early debate on the new rules for all-party groups that were announced by the Chairman of the Administration Committee on 22 February at col. 844? Is she aware that the likely impact of the new rules will be the disappearance of a significant number of all-party country groups? That would be a matter of concern for the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and for the embassies and high commissions of the countries concerned in London.
Does the right hon. Lady agree that, in parliamentary terms, it is wholly unacceptable for a Select Committee of this House to make far-reaching proposals bearing on the parliamentary activities of large numbers of hon. Members without making any formal report to this House; to do so without giving the House an opportunity to approve or reject the proposals; and to bring them in with immediate effect, backed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards' minute of 29 February, by the expedient of a written parliamentary answer?

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the concern of the right hon. Gentleman, and his anxiety at the nature of the proposal and the means that we used to bring it into effect. I am sure that the Administration Committee had no intention of causing difficulties for right hon. and hon. Members, but I will draw the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Committee's attention.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I add my voice to those calling for an early debate on the hugely significant report of the Liaison Committee issued last Friday? Does my right hon. Friend share my disbelief that the Committee found that colleagues are kept off Select Committees because of their views? I had no idea that that happened. However, this matter has particular salience at the moment. The Government are perceived by some to be in the grip of control freaks, manipulative and out to fix everything. Would not the best way of responding to that be to schedule an early debate and a vote on the Committee's recommendations?

Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for an early debate on what is, as my hon. Friend


correctly identifies, a weighty and serious report which will require careful consideration. Of course it is shocking to suggest that someone might be kept off a Select Committee because of their views—just as shocking as when the previous Government removed a long-serving and highly respected Member of this House from a Select Committee. It was widely thought—including by the Member in question—that that was done because of his views. The notion that there is something unprecedented about these disputes is clearly wholly wrong, but I understand the concern that my hon. Friend expresses.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will know that the management of the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast has put its work force on notice. Will she use her influence in joined-up Government with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Northern Ireland Office to try get a deal done quickly to preserve a shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom? Such a deal would also help our steel industry, as the purchasers of the cruise liner involved are keen that their ship be built in a British yard.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has involved himself in the matter, with a view to helping. Tabling for the next Department of Trade and Industry Question Time will be next week, and the hon. Gentleman may want to explore the matter further then. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the relevant Ministers.

Jean Corston: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on European Union objective 1 funding for areas of poverty, unemployment and social exclusion? Has she noticed that Conservative Members increasingly call for that funding for different parts of the United Kingdom? Would not such a debate give them an opportunity to explain why the inheritance of 18 years of Tory Government is that there are so many areas that qualify for objective 1 funding?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right, and such a debate would give an opportunity for Opposition Members to explain why so much poverty and deprivation was left in this country at the end of the Conservative Government's long term of office. It would also give this Government a chance to point to our excellent record in wresting objective 1 funding from negotiations in the European Union.
However, I fear that I must repeat what I have had to say to one or two hon. Members already: attractive though the prospect may be, unfortunately the Government have more pressing matters to debate.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Is the Leader of the House aware that Tuesday's spring supplementary estimates, which were published on 23 February, were sent for publication by the Treasury on 31 January? If the Government harnessed

modern technology to reduce that production period, would there not be less need for revised supplementary estimates?

Mrs. Beckett: No, I freely confess to the right hon. Gentleman that I was not aware of that. I take his point entirely, and will draw it to the attention of the relevant Ministers.

Ms Joan Walley: In mining communities and former mining communities, there is much concern about the time taken for miners to receive compensation for chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Does my right hon. Friend have any plans for an early debate on the progress that is being made in making the delayed payments? I understand that the process is very bureaucratic, and I urge my right hon. Friend to investigate how joined-up Government thinking might speed up the compensation payments.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I know how great is the concern that she identifies. Many hon. Members—especially Labour Members, but also hon. Members of all parties—have campaigned for the compensation. No one regrets more than the Government the time that has been taken to bring these matters to a conclusion. However, I believe that a working party has recently reported that the Government have made sure that about 50 additional chest consultants have been appointed to carry out the examinations. It is hoped that, from this month, cases will start to be settled much more speedily.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Is the Leader of the House aware of the rising incidence of suicide among farmers? It now far exceeds the number of deaths caused by or attributed to CJD. This morning, dairy farmers marched through my constituency on their way to lobby Parliament next Wednesday. Those people are at their wits' end with worry about their livelihoods and their lives in general. Last week, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was sent a letter signed by 138 organisations and associations pleading for action to save rural and small abattoirs.
May I remind the right hon. Lady and the rest of the House that for the past several weeks, pig farmers have been camped out in Parliament square because of the desperate situation in their industry? I request that the Leader of the House organise an early debate, in Government time, when the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can come to the House and account for his stewardship. It should not take very long, because he has done nothing.

Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand, and the whole House shares, the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed about the farming industry, which my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Prime Minister have repeatedly acknowledged. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the leader of his own party has acknowledged that the problems of agriculture did not start on 1 May 1997, but are of long standing. I believe that the Prime Minister is due to see representatives of the farming industry again at the end of the month.
As for the notion that we should have a further special debate, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last debate we had on agriculture was in Government time, at the instigation of the Minister of Agriculture. Secondly, I remind him that his party has Opposition time, and if his right hon. and hon. Friends share so widely his concern, it is open to them to use that time to debate such matters.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if she managed to arrange a debate on industries in trouble, it might enable someone to point out just what happened when the Tories were closing the pits? They did not care about subsidies then; they did not care about subsidies when they were shutting down the steel industry; they did not care about subsidies when they were shutting down the shipbuilding industry. They are very selective about which industry to support.
I ask my right hon. Friend to remember that when the Tories privatised the pits, they decided to take 50 per cent. of the surplus of the miners' pension fund. Will she have a word with those responsible, to see that that money goes back into the miners' pockets and into the mining communities where it belongs?

Mrs. Beckett: It is well within the memory of everyone in the House how many industries suffered devastating job losses and how many companies disappeared under the regime supported by Conservative Members. Although I fully recognise the concerns of the farming industry, it has not escaped my attention that the amount of money going in public support to that industry is more than the entire budget for the Department of Trade and Industry.
My hon. Friend's final point about the pension fund is, as I am sure he will know, under review, and the Government will be making an announcement in due course.

Mr. Eric Forth: The Leader of the House will recall the Prime Minister boasting yesterday that he had visited his constituency of Sedgefield. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us when last he went there prior to that visit. May I ask for an urgent debate on Sedgefield so that we can establish not only the frequency of the Prime Minister's visits to his constituency, but whether he listens to his constituents on the rare occasions he is there? The Leader of the House may be aware that a poll has just been taken showing that 71 per cent. of the people of Sedgefield are against the repeal of section 28.
I am trying to be helpful here, and perhaps the right hon. Lady can help me and the Prime Minister. If we debated this, it would give the Prime Minister the opportunity to come to the House, report on the number of times he goes to his constituency, and tell us whether he has listened to anyone there, particularly about section 28.

Mrs. Beckett: May I correct the right hon. Gentleman? The Prime Minister was challenged yesterday by Conservative Members to say when he had last visited his constituency, and that is why he gave the answer that he did. [HON. MEMBERS: "Once!"] He was asked when he was last in Sedgefield, and he said last Friday. I know that Conservative Members do not like it, but I am afraid that they will have to put up with it.
As for the frequency of my right hon. Friend's visits, that is not a matter in which there would be wide interest across the House. I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that it cuts both ways. I have heard remarks from constituents of his about the frequency of his visits to his own constituency.

Angela Smith: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to read early-day motion 459?
[That this House condemns the decision by Barclays Bank plc to close two branches in the Basildon and East Thurrock constituency in the Stanford-le-Hope and the Laindon centre; regrets that Barclays have chosen to close two out of five branches in the constituency, thus greatly reducing the service it offers to individual customers and local businesses; and calls upon Barclays to reconsider its decisions and consult its customers on the closures.]
Has she, in addition, read early-day motions 447, 479, 485, 488 and 494 on the same matter? Does she accept that there is concern about banks closing local branches and removing services from our constituents without consultation while simultaneously seeking to charge customers for hole-in-the-wall services? May we have an early debate?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that there is great concern, which she has frequently voiced, about access to financial services and the problems caused when banks make changes. There is a feeling in the House that the matter should be tackled, but I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate in the near future. I know that, through early-day motions and other means, my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will continue to raise the matter.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Will the right hon. Lady arrange a debate on a subject causing increasing concern in parliamentary circles—ministerial accountability to Parliament? The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not come to financial debates, and we recently observed that the Secretary of State for Defence failed to attend during Front-Bench speeches on the main defence debate of the year.
My immediate concern, however, is the answering of parliamentary questions. Is the right hon. Lady aware that I put down an important question on reserve forces on 10 December, to which I received a holding reply? My subsequent questions in January and February about when I would receive a substantive reply have not even been acknowledged. Is that not an abuse of the parliamentary system, and are not parliamentary questions and their timely answer an important part of parliamentary democracy?

Mrs. Beckett: In general terms, I have observed that the Opposition's great concern about ministerial accountability to Parliament seems to apply only to Ministers in the present Government. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point about his question on reserve forces. I was not aware that his question had gone unanswered, and I shall certainly draw that fact to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I suspect that there has been an oversight, but I agree that it is not satisfactory.

Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate in Government time on the


future of parish and town councils? Like my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor), I am a member of such a council, and we should like to put it on the record that the Opposition's dishonourable and disreputable campaign claiming that the Government intend to get rid of those councils is anything but the truth.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point so firmly. I fear that I cannot find time for an extra debate on the Floor of the House, but he can seek other opportunities to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate or in Westminster Hall. I agree that the matter is important, and that it is wrong for people to be misled.

Mr. Roger Gale: Barclays bank in Westgate on Sea in my constituency has announced its closure. The bank was the last in that populous village, although there is still a post office. Many of my constituents are concerned by the Government's apparent determination to remove pension payments from post offices. They fear that, as they will have to rely on automatic banking machines, they will be charged out of their pensions when they obtain relatively modest sums. Will the Leader of the House comply with the request made by the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) for time to debate this matter properly?

Mrs. Beckett: It was the Government supported by the hon. Gentleman who introduced the proposals that are causing a good deal of concern. We recently debated the Postal Services Bill, during which debate all those concerns were fully aired. My right hon. and hon. Friends from the Department of Trade and Industry made it plain that reports that people would have no choice in how their pensions would be paid were entirely wrong. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to take this opportunity to reassure his constituents.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate the draft climate change programme published today, which I warmly welcome? Such a debate would allow the House to consider how to accelerate the launch of a domestic emissions trading scheme and to identify action necessary to stimulate the renewable energy industry. Achieving our targets for renewables and climate change could create between 10,000 and 45,000 new jobs, predominantly in manufacturing, but also in rural areas.

Mrs. Beckett: I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in that subject and of his pursuit of it. Indeed, he recently initiated an Adjournment debate on the matter.
There is great interest on both sides of the House in that detailed subject and a concern that the agenda be pursued. However, I fear that I cannot find time for a special, urgent debate on it in the near future.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Can the Leader of the House arrange time to have the Utilities Bill recommitted for debate on the Floor of the House? Since Second Reading, telecommunications and water have been removed from the Bill. The Clerks have been searching

for a precedent for so many changes to a Bill while it was still in Committee. The measure is turning into the Futility Bill.
Today, we heard on Radio 4—where every Member obtains his or her information—that the Government have met the environmental target of 12.5 per cent. towards which, of course, the Utilities Bill was supposed to be working. The Government have just announced that they are holding urgent discussions with the Electricity Association about where the Bill should be going. May we have it back on the Floor of the House so that every Member of Parliament will be able to express their view as to what has happened?

Mrs. Beckett: No, I fear that there is no question of the Government finding time for that. The way in which the Bill is being handled has been made plain.
As for the hon. Gentleman's inquiries to the Clerks, I can save their time and his; the lifetime of the previous Government offers many precedents of Bills being changed substantially. I direct his attention to the debates in 1985 and 1986 on the Social Security Bill, when, after the Bill had been guillotined, the Tory Government introduced substantial new proposals and measures—all of which took money away from the most vulnerable people in the community.

Mr. John Wilkinson: The Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), is not a parliamentary shrinking violet. Will the Leader of the House induce her right hon. Friend to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement on the soaring estimates of the cost of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh? Is it not an affront that English taxpayers should have to pay for that, especially as they receive no quid pro quo? They even have to pay university fees for their children, unlike their Scottish and European Union counterparts.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right: my right hon. Friend is not a shrinking violet—he is a robust contender in the House. Indeed, he will be in the Chamber for Question Time on 21 March to defend the Government's record robustly. However, I doubt that the hon. Gentleman or anyone else will be successful in drawing my right hon. Friend on the Scottish Parliament building; not only is that not a matter for him, it is not even one for Scottish Office Ministers—it is under the control of the Scottish parliamentary corporate body.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: In order to facilitate the family-friendly working practices to which, I am sure, we all aspire, can my right hon. Friend tell me whether there is any intention to timetable any of the Government Bills that she has announced today?

Mrs. Beckett: I only wish that I could agree that we all aspire to family-friendly working practices. It is all too plain that some hon. Members aspire to no such thing and, indeed, that they do their best to destroy those practices. The Government accept the decisions made in the earliest days of this Parliament by the Modernisation Committee to encourage the development of programme motions so that we can manage our business more effectively and in a more orderly way. That will ensure that important issues


can be properly aired. I continue to hold that view, although it is not clear whether it remains that of the Opposition.

Mr. Graham Brady: The Leader of the House will be aware that there is growing public concern about the sneaky and disreputable way in which the Government increase taxes for millions of ordinary people. Tesco has written to 170,000 of its employees to tell them that, because of the Government's pensions tax, they will have to increase their contributions from 3.75 per cent. of salary to 4.25 per cent. In view of that, is it not time we held a debate on stealth taxes—on the way the Government are hitting ordinary working people extremely hard and trying to sneak their proposals through so that people will not notice them?

Mrs. Beckett: I know that Conservative Members are not much of an opposition, but four days debate on the Budget are to come and we have just had Treasury questions. Surely even they can manage to raise the financial issues that they want to.

Points of Order

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given you notice of my point of order, because it affects the rights of all hon. Members. Under the Bank of England Act 1998, the Treasury is required to give certain directions to the Bank of England about its inflation target and other Government policies. Under section 12, the Treasury is required to lay a copy of that before Parliament. I am advised that the Government failed to do that, both last year and the year before. They have broken their own law.
My point of order for you, Madam Speaker, is that the Government are also in contempt of the rules and procedures of the House. The laying of a paper is described in "Erskine May" as the way by which important papers are made available to the House generally. I attempted two days ago to obtain this document and was told that it was not available because the Government had failed to lay it before Parliament, as required by the 1998 Act. When I raised this matter with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in a debate in Westminster Hall yesterday, she appeared to be unconcerned and uninterested, and failed to reply to my point.
Even if you, Madam Speaker, cannot force the Government to obey their own laws, what can you do to protect the rights of hon. Members to receive the documents that the law requires should be made available to the House through the procedures laid out in "Erskine May"?

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. He probably realises that I received notice of it only a short time before I took the Chair today, so I have not had time to examine it. I shall do so at my earliest opportunity.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there anything in the rules of the House that would allow you directly, or through your influence, to protect the interests of Back Benchers? You will have heard the question that I asked the Cabinet Office yesterday about the time it takes for Ministers to respond to letters. I have a constituent who has now waited 425 days for a letter from the Ministry of Defence about a simple matter. I know that I am not unique among colleagues in waiting months and months for replies.
I raised this issue with the previous Government and tried to improve matters for all colleagues. Is there anything that we can do as Back Benchers to give you, Madam Speaker, the power to require Ministers to answer letters? In extremis, perhaps you would like to invite the Prime Minister to afternoon tea where you could quietly have a word for him about what has happened.

Madam Speaker: I am not certain what I can do. I am terribly sympathetic to Members who are waiting for replies. I have been a Member of the House for more than a quarter of a century, so I know how important it is—

Mr. John Bercow: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have not finished yet. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member for only a few years.
I understand how important it is to receive punctual replies. I do not know what I can do and I understand the situation only too well. I shall do my utmost to be helpful. Now—Mr. Bercow.

Mr. Bercow: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I readily acknowledge that it probably seems that I have been here for a lot longer than three years.
Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), may I seek your guidance specifically about correspondence with, and replies from, the Prime Minister? In January, I had a brief correspondence with him and, four weeks ago, I wrote him a four-line letter requiring a yes or no reply. To that letter, I have received a holding reply saying that the Prime Minister will endeavour to furnish me with an answer as soon as he reasonably can, but such an answer has not yet been forthcoming. Can you, Madam Speaker, offer any guidance about the inner recesses of the Prime Minister's mind?

Madam Speaker: I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on that one.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. We understand that, despite your great influence, the problem of correspondence with Departments may be outside your direct powers. However, will you consider the related problem of the long delays in the answers to some written questions? The number of written questions that are not answered on the named day is increasing in a number of Departments. That is a matter of great concern to all Members and directly relates to the business of the House. Could you consider that problem at the same time?

Madam Speaker: Yes, I am happy to take on that additional burden. I shall do what I can to be helpful in all those matters. It is important for the functioning of the House that we get our business done speedily and efficiently.

Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you share my concern that the more dilatory Ministers are in replying to questions, the more there will be a temptation for Members to table further questions to pursue the original one? The danger is that if we are not careful the whole system will get completely clogged because of ministerial arrogance and indifference to the parliamentary process.
I know that that will concern you on a number of levels, Madam Speaker, such as the relationship between the Government and the House, over which you preside, and the administration of the House through the Table Office,

over which you also happily preside, along with the Clerks. Surely there is a danger that owing to the Government's dilatoriness and arrogance, we will become mired in the parliamentary questions process, and that will adversely affect the effectiveness of the House.

Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is expressing his opinion, which he has every right to do in the House, and I am prepared to listen and to understand. A few moments ago, I gave a sincere undertaking that I would do my best to help the House.

Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, I seldom raise points of order, but I think that this one is appropriate. Did you notice that the Prime Minister, in a reply yesterday, and the Leader of the House, in a reply today, did not deny the substance of the remarks of the Liberal Democrat leader in the other place, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, when he said that the Prime Minister had offered to create more Liberal Democrat peers in return for favourable voting? Is not that an abuse of the procedures of Parliament?

Madam Speaker: Points of order should relate to something on which I can undertake to try to help the House, in terms of our proceedings. I am not responsible for the comments made by Back Benchers or Ministers.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Further to the point of order made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), Madam Speaker. Will you advise me on written answers in which the Minister, in this case, the Home Secretary, hides behind national security? I asked a simple question last week about
how much has been spent from public funds on protecting Senator Pinochet since October 1998.
I was told:
The information requested cannot be provided for security reasons.—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 568W.]

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman must use the Order Paper and opportunities in the House. The cost of keeping Senator Pinochet here is not a matter for me.

BILL PRESENTED

MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Paul Flynn, supported by Mr. Gordon Prentice and Mr. Austin Mitchell, presented a Bill to allow the production, supply, possession and use of cannabis and cannabis resin for medicinal purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 June, and to be printed [Bill 85].

Orders of the Day — ROYAL PARKS (TRADING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — Race Relations (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is a fundamental part of our programme to achieve racial equality in this country. One of the Government's central aims is to achieve a society where there is respect for all, regardless of their race, colour or creed, and a society that celebrates its cultural richness and ethnic diversity. That is not only inherently right but essential for Britain's economic and social success.
In the world of business, it is increasingly clear that the world-class organisations capable of surviving and adapting in a global marketplace are those that value and embrace diversity. A successful multicultural society is not simply a question of equality for a minority; it is an essential competitive strategy for the UK, benefiting each and every one of us regardless of our religion or the colour of our skin.
All countries have to have an effective system of immigration control. The UK is no exception, but it is worth remembering that in many ways we are a nation of migrants: ours is a history of successive waves of migration, both in and out of this country. Many of the newcomers who have arrived on our shores lawfully have had a very great deal to give. It is on these successive waves of migration that much of our society has been built. For example, Caribbean nurses came in the 1960s, in response to calls made by the then Minister of Health, Enoch Powell, to meet labour shortages in the United Kingdom. Gujeratis came to Lancashire to work in the textile mills, following advertisements placed in India and Pakistan by Lancashire mill owners.
Everyone understands the concern that exists about those who arrive in this country in abuse of our system of control. None the less, there have been moments in our history when anxieties about those who are lawfully present in the United Kingdom have threatened to spill over into divisions that could permanently have scarred us all. In the 1930s, our democracy was threatened by the rise of fascists in this country and their attacks on many groups, but especially the Jewish community.
Race relations reached another low ebb in the late-1950s and early-1960s. Signs outside lodgings reading "No dogs, no Irish, no blacks" were not

uncommon. People were refused service in shops and cafes solely on the grounds of their race. It was lawful to be openly racist in electoral campaigns.
Things have changed significantly since then, and we ought to be proud of that, but the sea change in attitudes is no accident. It is in large part due to the three race relations Bills of the past 35 years. Each, I am proud to say, was brought before the House by a Labour Government.
However, there are no grounds for complacency. We know very well that real race equality has not yet been achieved. We know that many people—often the children and grandchildren of immigrants, born and bred in this country, but with a different coloured skin or a different sounding name from the majority—still suffer from discrimination and prejudice for that reason and no other.
The Bill will ensure equality for everyone, regardless of skin colour, surname, or other irrelevant factors. It significantly updates the Race Relations Act 1976, and it is the first piece of legislation to do so for almost 25 years.
The Bill has three main purposes: to extend the Race Relations Act in relation to discrimination and victimisation by public authorities; to make chief officers of police vicariously liable for acts of racial discrimination by police officers; and to amend an exemption under the 1976 Act for acts done for the purpose of safeguarding national security, thus remedying a provision that we believe is incompatible with the European convention on human rights.
Hon. Members are aware that on 27 January I announced to the House that the Government would table amendments in Committee to amend the Bill in relation to indirect discrimination, and to place a positive duty on public authorities to promote race equality.
Today, I shall describe what the Bill does, and explain the effect of the amendments that the Government will seek to make in those important areas.
Let me explain briefly what the 1976 Act does, as the Bill amends that principal Act. The 1976 Act makes it unlawful for anybody to discriminate on racial grounds in relation to employment, training and education, the provision of goods, facilities and services, and in respect of certain other specified activities. It provides for individuals who have been discriminated against to bring proceedings and to claim damages in employment tribunals or designated county courts. The 1976 Act established the Commission for Racial Equality, and gave it independent strategic investigative and enforcement powers.
The 1976 Act applies to discrimination by public authorities in employment, training and education, and the provision of goods, facilities and services. However, it has been found by the courts to apply only when the act in question is at least similar to an act that could be committed by a private person. The legislation does not generally apply to functions that fall outside the specified matters. The precise distinction between functions that are covered and those that are not is unclear, and is clarified in only piecemeal fashion by decisions of the courts.
One of the paradoxes of the legislation is that, in practice, it has had a greater impact on the private sector than on the public sector. There is no extensive regulatory impact assessment for the Bill because the private sector has undertaken to fulfil its responsibilities under the Bill, as it has fulfilled them under the 1976 Act.
The Bill will ensure that legislation properly and comprehensively covers similar functions that can only be carried out by a public authority.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the Home Secretary tell the House now, or inform me subsequently in writing, how many prosecutions have been made under the Race Relations Act 1976 and how that figure compares with the number of prosecutions under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975?

Mr. Straw: I regret that I cannot give that figure immediately. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can provide it when he winds up, or a magical piece of paper will appear from those people who have to remain nameless and sit in the box alongside. If that happens, I shall try to provide the answer while I am speaking.
I can tell the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), because I happen to have the figures in my head, that under the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for new offences of racially aggravated harassment, violence and criminal damage, there have been more than 100 prosecutions, according to the latest figures that I have seen. I appreciate that that is not the answer that the hon. Gentleman seeks, but it provides an illustration.
The Bill will implement Government commitments that were made in response to one of the key recommendations of the report of the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence. The report recommended that the 1976 Act should be extended to cover the police and that chief officers of police should be made vicariously liable for acts of racial discrimination by police officers.
The Government said when the report was published that we would go further. We are doing that now. We are extending the 1976 Act not only to cover the police, but functions of other public authorities, listed in schedule 1, which are not currently covered. The Bill tackles gaps in coverage of the public sector which were left when the 1976 Act was introduced, or which have subsequently been found through the development of case law.
Clause 1 will extend the 1976 Act with regard to public authorities.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I want to make a point about the definition of public authorities. Schedule 1 lists many public authorities. However, a lot of other legislation, including the Human Rights Act 1998, also lists them. Will the Home Secretary consider whether it would be helpful to consolidate the definitions of public authority? I have examined every dot and comma, and the Bill presents an opportunity for achieving a common definition that would serve for much legislation.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I shall develop the point. It is fair for hon. Members to point out that the Human Rights Act, which does not schedule public authorities, refers to bodies that exercise a public function. They could be private sector bodies. For example, the provisions could apply to Railtrack's safety functions, but not its private functions as a property developer. They could also apply to water authorities. We

believed that it was essential to schedule the public authorities to which the Freedom of Information Bill applies because they have a duty and they must know whether they are public authorities so that they can produce the necessary codes.
I can tell the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and other hon. Members who have raised the matter outside as well as inside the House, that deciding whether our attempts to define public authorities in the Bill are correct has been a matter of fine debate in government—I hope that it can also be a matter of debate in the House.
Some duties in the Bill are prospective; the Human Rights Act is slightly different. I would be interested to hear whether the House believes that it would be sensible to include a schedule that made public authorities aware that they are public authorities. We could also consider whether there should not be a definition equivalent to that in the Human Rights Act, which could take account of private sector bodies that exercise public sector functions. I am happy for that to be considered.

Mr. Hughes: I understand exactly the point that we need certainty so that people understand that they might have a duty or an obligation. Therefore we probably need a schedule containing a list that could be updated by secondary legislation or in other ways. As the Freedom of Information Bill is going through Parliament, is the Home Secretary willing to consider whether, after discussions, we could decide on a common formula that would allow a definition that gave best advice where possible and could be updated annually?

Mr. Straw: Of course. This is a matter of how we achieve a commonly agreed aim.

Sir Peter Lloyd: Is the Home Secretary saying that there is uncertainty in the very general definition in the Human Rights Act and that groups may not know that it applies to them? If that is not so, why can that definition not be used in this Bill?

Mr. Straw: There is uncertainty because whether the human rights convention applies to a body that exercises public functions has to be a matter for the courts to determine in the jurisprudence of the convention, which we are about to incorporate in United Kingdom law. There is obviously no argument about all the public bodies that exercise public functions, but because the boundary between a public body and a body exercising a public function has shifted markedly over the past 25 years, not least because of privatisation and outsourcing, some bodies and some individuals in the private sector who would be regarded as private in other circumstances—public limited companies, for example—none the less exercise public functions in respect of some of their duties.
I have given Railtrack and the water authorities as examples and one could think of many others. These days, private plcs exercise certain public functions in respect of the custody of prisoners—we had a great and perfectly open debate about that when we considered the Human Rights Act—but the question whether a person or body exercises a public function for the purposes of the convention has to be a matter for the courts.
On those matters and freedom of information, I say to the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) that there is a need for certainty in any event because, in respect of freedom of information in particular, the public bodies have to produce codes. I am working my way through whether, at the same time as providing the maximum degree of certainty in a schedule, we should not also not exclude bodies which, down the track, might be said to exercise a public function after all and therefore should have been encompassed by the Bill. I want to share my consideration with the House, but retrospectively inserting such a provision in a schedule may not be the appropriate way to achieve that.

Sir Peter Lloyd: I am trying to follow the Home Secretary's argument. Is he saying that the 1976 Act, which applies to the private sector, leaves a gap between the public and private sectors that needs to be filled by a list? I thought that he was extending that Act to the public sector so there ought not to be a gap, except where the Bill excludes a particular organisation.

Mr. Straw: I accept the logical neatness of what the right hon. Gentleman says, but that neatness does not apply completely, perhaps because we are discussing this issue before considering the contents of the Bill.
The Bill also introduces a positive duty to promote racial equality, which applies to public bodies but not to the private sector. A different responsibility is placed on the private sector, and in that respect I think the right hon. Gentleman may have a case. I am trying to be helpful to him, not least because of representations that he has made to me. In that respect, we may have to change the precise wording of the Bill, because I want this to be a matter for open discussion.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress I will happily give way to him later, as I always do.
As I was saying, clause 1 will extend the Race Relations Act 1976 in respect of public authorities by inserting new sections 19B, 19C and 19D in part III. Amendments tabled in Committee will also include section 1(1)(b) of the Act, which deals with indirect discrimination. New section 19B will make it unlawful for a public authority to discriminate directly against a person, or to victimise a person, on racial grounds in carrying out any of its functions. The provision applies to all functions that are not already covered by the existing provisions of the Act.
The provision will have a wide application. For the purposes of the new section, "public authorities" will include bodies, or classes of body, listed in a new schedule. The schedule lists the main central Government and local government bodies, including the police, Ministers of the Crown, Government officials and law enforcers. It includes Scottish public bodies and authorities, as equal opportunities are a matter reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. Although the Scottish Parliament's consent to the Bill is therefore not required, under the arrangements set out by Lord Sewel in another

place on 21 July 1998 there has been contact at both official and ministerial level on the Bill's application to devolved Scottish public bodies.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I will give way to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) first, because I said that I would.

Mr. Howarth: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. He is always courteous in this regard.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the authorities mentioned in schedule 1 to which the Bill will extend coverage. There is a specific exclusion in respect of security, and GCHQ is specifically mentioned. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is the case, and explain why GCHQ has been excluded?

Mr. Straw: National security is not entirely excluded, and the agencies referred to are not excluded in terms of employment practice. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will deal with that part of the Bill when I reach it in my speech.

Dr. Lewis: Would it be regarded as de facto evidence of discrimination if members of one ethnic or religious group were over-represented in prison in proportion to their strength in the population, or would each case of discrimination be viewed on an individual basis? It might be argued that some groups are over-represented at Oxford and Cambridge because a disproportionate number of their members pass the entrance examinations.

Mr. Straw: That arises acutely in the context of indirect discrimination. I shall return to that when I reach the appropriate point in my speech; if I have not answered the hon. Gentleman's point, I shall happily give way to him again.
There are some exceptions and omissions from the list of public authorities in the schedule, and I want to reassure the House about them. In most instances, omissions have been made for one of three reasons. First, the functions of some bodies are already clearly covered in the existing Race Relations Act: education bodies are an obvious example. Secondly, the schedule does not currently include non-departmental public bodies—quangos. We intend, where it is established in consultation with such bodies that they have functions not already covered by the Act, to add them to the list of public authorities by order. Thirdly, as I have explained, the schedule does not include private bodies carrying out public functions. One way or another, we intend such bodies to be covered by the Act in respect of their public functions.
That provision represents an important extension of the existing legal protection against racial discrimination. The Government will seek to strengthen the provision further in Committee by making it unlawful for a public authority to discriminate indirectly as well as directly, in line with my announcement to the House on 27 January.
The distinction between those two types of discrimination is this. Direct discrimination is where one person treats another less favourably than he treats, or would treat, other people. Indirect discrimination occurs


when a requirement or condition which, though applied equally to people of different racial groups, has the effect that the proportion of one racial group that can comply is considerably smaller than the proportion of another racial group, but—to respond to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis)—such a requirement or condition is unlawful only if it cannot be justified irrespective of racial group and if it is detrimental to the claimant who cannot comply.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's point directly, if it turned out that one racial group were markedly over-represented in the prison population, inquiries could be made about why that was. If it turned out that the reason was that courts, magistrates, juries, sentencers all had a down on that particular racial group, it would be very difficult to justify that proportion of people being in the prison population. On the other hand, if it turned out that the reason why they were over-represented was that they were committing more crimes, it would be entirely justified.
There is considerable case law on the subject, not in respect of that particular area, because it has not been the subject of the law, but in respect, for example, of employment practices—people from one racial group have complained about employment practices—and other areas. In one quite well-known case, someone from abroad complained that he was being indirectly discriminated against because one of the conditions for going on a Manpower Services Commission course was that he should have had work experience in this country. He said that he could not have had such experience because he had not been here.
The courts held that the commission was justified in its approach because it had nothing to do with people's racial origin: it was essential for the course that people had such experience. It might be said parenthetically that there would come a moment when that person could have had that experience. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: May I make some more progress? Then of course I will give way.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Government have given very careful thought to the decision to extend indirect discrimination provisions to the Bill. I say openly that there was anxiety across government about how exactly that would fall. There was concern to ensure that such a provision would be effective without leaving public bodies open to routine and unnecessary legal challenge in circumstances where their policies were entirely proper and justified.
Since the Bill's publication last December, I have listened carefully to the arguments about the issue, as did my colleagues in government. We concluded that, on balance, the risk of spurious challenge was outweighed by the principle of including indirect discrimination in respect of public sector functions in the Bill.
I put it on record that I am grateful to the many right hon. and hon. Members who made representations to me about the measure. I am also grateful to their lordships for their contribution.

Mr. Simon Hughes: All of us, I think, are grateful to the Government for having recognised the strength of the case and reasonably said that they would table amendments to deal with the indirect discrimination point. I wonder whether the Home Secretary can tell us at this stage whether he has reached a conclusion about whether to take the proposed easy route, which is simply to take two lines out of the Bill—which was put to him by the outgoing chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality and others, including some in the other place—or whether that is still up for debate. If the right hon. Gentleman were able to give a simple answer and support the simple proposition, it might get simple reward from hon. Members on both sides of the House this afternoon.

Mr. Straw: My intention was to take the simple route. Some people sometimes think that I take the complicated route, but I am not up for that. If my memory is failing me, I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman.
It would be appropriate to place on record not only my thanks, but the thanks of a huge number of people, for the work of Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who over the years has made probably a greater, more singular, contribution to the development of race relations legislation than anyone else in this country. It was he who—behind Roy Jenkins—was the architect of the Race Relations Act 1965, the Race Relations Act 1968 and the Race Relations Act 1976. I have no hesitation in saying that I have listened very carefully to the advice that he has offered.
The Government also intend—I have made it clear—to table in Committee an amendment to place a statutory duty on public authorities to promote race equality. The Government regard the promotion of equality as a positive way of eliminating unjustifiable indirect discrimination and, distinct from that, what the Stephen Lawrence inquiry called "institutional racism". Our setting of targets for ethnic minority recruitment, retention and promotion and our guidelines for mainstreaming race equality into policy development and implementation offer concrete examples of how race equality can be promoted.
The Government's commitment to placing the promotion of equality by public bodies generally on a statutory footing was announced in our equality statement, on 30 November 1999. We have since said that we shall reinforce that commitment by tabling a Government amendment to enshrine the principle in the Bill, leaving room for consultation on how the duty will operate in practice.
Both those amendments will considerably strengthen the Bill and help to create the right legislative framework to bring about the step change in race equality that the Government are seeking to achieve.
I should like now to describe the special provisions relating to immigration, asylum and nationality, in new section 19C.
The extension in the Bill of the Race Relations Act 1976 will cover the work of immigration staff. That includes all staff working in the Home Office immigration and nationality directorate and the immigration service in the United Kingdom, and—I make this clear—entry clearance officers based overseas.
The Bill provides various consequential measures to secure a proper alignment between the various statutory provisions covering race relations and those governing immigration, asylum and nationality. Those are necessary to allow our immigration laws to continue to be administered as Parliament intended, and to support the Government's policy of reforming and accelerating the immigration and asylum appeals system.
The House will be familiar with the measures in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to produce a new one-stop procedure for appeals. Those measures, once implemented, are aimed to support the achievement of our target that, by April 2001, the majority of asylum applications will be resolved within an average of two months, and appeals against a refusal within a further four months.
The operation of an effective and rational immigration system, however, necessarily and legitimately requires a distinction to be made between individuals on the basis of their nationality and, occasionally, their ethnic or national origin. For example—this may be stating the obvious, but it is quite important that it should be stated—the operation of our immigration control at ports must distinguish between our own citizens, who are free from immigration control, and other nationalities, who are not. There are different rules for those who enjoy free movement rights under European law and those who do not. The immigration rules therefore make distinct provisions for nationals who require a visa to travel to the United Kingdom and for those who do not. Some rules and policies apply only to Commonwealth countries or to specified nationalities.
The safeguards in the Race Relations Act 1976 covering acts of discrimination done in pursuance of other statutory provisions, as interpreted by case law, are—within the context of the Bill—insufficient to allow the immigration system to operate as it should. If consequential provisions were not made, Ministers would, for example, be unable to authorise special compassionate exercises when necessary for particular ethnic or national groups—as we did last year, when we had the special exercise to evacuate and provide protection to Kosovan Albanians—and immigration staff would be unable to perform their duties in accordance with ministerial instructions.
The powers in the Bill will be subject to very close safeguards. It will be unlawful for immigration staff to discriminate on grounds of race or colour or, in the case of nationality and ethnic and national origins, go beyond what is specified in immigration and nationality law or expressly authorised by Ministers. We are also considering making further changes to the Bill to provide independent oversight of the operation of those provisions. I hope to make further proposals on those changes in Committee.
New section 19D seeks to preserve the role of the criminal courts as the sole forum for determining guilt by exempting from the Bill's provisions decisions not to prosecute. The importance of that principle was recognised both by the White Paper on freedom of information and also by the Phillips royal commission, in 1981, which said:
publicly calling into question a decision not to prosecute could amount to a trial of the suspect without the safeguards which criminal proceedings are designed to provide.

Clause 2 relates to appointments made on the recommendation or approval of Ministers and Departments, but not by them. It brings such appointments more in line with existing arrangements for other public appointments.
Clause 4 makes further provision on the public prosecution function to ensure balance between the rights of individuals who have been discriminated against and the Government's commitments on the criminal justice system as a whole. Striking that balance means that civil proceedings for discrimination may have to wait until related criminal proceedings have been finalised. Stays to civil proceedings will defer, but not prevent, the resolution of a claim for discrimination.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Has the Home Secretary made any calculation of the number of cases likely to be brought? As he said, the Bill will clog up the legal system, even if the charge against someone who complains of discrimination is heard before the complaint.

Mr. Straw: Unusually, the hon. Gentleman misheard me. I did not say that the system would be clogged up. I said that it could get clogged up if we did not take action in the Bill, but we are taking that action, with the approval of the House, so the legal system will not be any more clogged up than it is with the delays about which we heard on Tuesday. If I may make a partisan point in an otherwise non-partisan debate, on Tuesday the hon. Gentleman voted against a measure that will ease pressures on the courts.
There are some details about the costs towards the end of the explanatory notes to the Bill, on page 13. We do not anticipate significant costs arising. We have given our best estimates. However, a very large cost will hit public authorities and society as a whole if we do not legislate. The first cost that we should be concerned about is the moral cost, but there would also be a financial cost. If people feel resentful that they have been treated unfairly and unequally, they will not give of their best. Happily, the incorporation of the European convention on human rights is not a matter of dissension between the parties, but people would seek other, less effective routes round the race relations legislation to get their rights.
Clause 5 contains a further consequential measure, providing that claims of unlawful racial discrimination from individuals subject to immigration control that relate specifically to a decision in an individual immigration or asylum case will be heard by the independent appellate authority as part of the one-stop procedure on appeals. That is consistent with our policy that all outstanding matters in immigration and asylum appeals should be considered by the appellate authority at one time. We have sought to ensure that there is one appeal for anything related to immigration and asylum. As well as immigration claims, that covers those who decide to develop a subsequent asylum application and appeal and then to put in an appeal against deportation. That is what happens now.
We want all three appeals to be heard in one go. In addition, we have arranged that if people suddenly have a genuine—or perhaps more often not so genuine—case under the European convention on human rights, they must bring that forward at the time. Once someone has been through that process and made all their claims in


one go, they cannot then make a previously forgotten claim for racial discrimination as a result of the decision, which would then have to go before a separate tribunal, which could take months or years, suspending their removal. A claimant who substantiates their claim of discrimination within the immigration appellate system will then be able to apply to a county court, or to a sheriff court in Scotland, for damages. Those claimants not subject to immigration control who allege discrimination in other respects and have no direct recourse to the immigration appeal system—such as British citizens who feel that they have been the subject of discrimination by our immigration and nationality directorate—will be able to take their case direct to the county or sheriff court.
The second main purpose of the Bill is to increase the accountability of chief officers of police in race discrimination cases by making them vicariously liable for the racially discriminatory acts of individual police officers. This is achieved by clause 3.
In the existing Act, employers are held vicariously liable for the discriminatory acts of their employees, but police officers are office holders, not employees. Although the Police Act 1996 and the equivalent Act in Scotland make general provision for the vicarious liability of a chief officer of police, the courts' construction of the Race Relations Act has meant that that general provision does not apply to the Act.
That anomaly needs to be addressed, to bring the police into line both with other organisations and with its own general practice.

Mr. David Winnick: When chief constables appeared before the Home Affairs Committee regarding race relations legislation—arising of course from the terrible murder of Stephen Lawrence—I asked them the following question: when police officers made racist remarks, was disciplinary action taken? I do not have real confidence that effective disciplinary action was taken when such remarks were made. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we really should say that there is no room for racists anywhere in the police force and that if people have racist views they should leave the police force—and the sooner the better.

Mr. Straw: Of course I accept my hon. Friend's comment at the end of his intervention. That view is shared by all chief police officers and the overwhelming majority in the police service. Let me place on record my thanks to the police associations for what they have done in respect of the Lawrence inquiry report. I single out in particular Mr. Fred Broughton for his considerable leadership of the police service and his support for the Macpherson recommendations. It is now a disciplinary offence to be racially discriminatory within the police service.
As my hon. Friend will know as a longstanding member of the Select Committee, we have changed the arrangements for police discipline to include a civil standard of proof and a criminal standard of proof. No one can ever be sure that what happened in the terrible Lawrence case could not happen again, but I am certain that the risk has been greatly reduced.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Yet again I thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy. Does he agree that there is a

severe downside to branding the police as a racist institution? That was brought home to me when one of our own police constables in the Palace of Westminster said that one of the reasons why he had finally decided to retire was that he considered that he had been smeared as a racist by the report.

Mr. Straw: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I do not agree. The Macpherson report made it clear that there is institutional racism not only in the police service but in a large number of other public authorities and some private bodies. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I was about to conclude, but I shall detain the House for a moment while I deal with it.
The Bill would not be necessary if there were not institutional racism in a wide variety of public bodies. Let me say to the House what I have said outside on a number of occasions. There has been institutional racism in the Home Office—and that is not to say that I have ever met a senior manager or a Minister in this Government or the previous Government who could be described as openly racist or harbouring racist beliefs. Everybody in the Home Office and in the police was perfectly well-meaning towards black and Asian staff: they looked at the promotion arrangements and, on the odd occasion when black and Asian staff complained that they seemed to be less well-represented higher up, they were patted on the head and told that the arrangements were perfectly straightforward and open and that anyone could apply for promotion. The implication was that the fact that black and Asian applicants were not getting through must be something to do with the quality of those applicants, rather than any fault of the system.
Shortly after we took office and I became Home Secretary, we started work in the Home Office looking at the attitudes of black and Asian staff. We tried to find out what they really felt and what problems lay behind their gross under-representation at any level above administrative assistant, which is the bottom administrative grade. The work was done by external consultants, so staff did not have to own up to their managers, and we did a similar exercise in the Prison Service.
What emerged was, first, that black and Asian staff were cross that they were not getting a fair crack of the whip. Secondly, they could point to many aspects of the promotion system that were benign in intent, but discriminatory in effect. For example, people had to fill in a form to apply for promotion, and it was usual for them to receive some encouragement to do so. That encouragement was, on the whole, dished out in the pub after work. Fewer women than men go to the pub after work, but no Asian women go to the pub at all. So Asian women were outside the net and were not coming forward for promotion.
We followed up the conclusions and we have changed the system. The hon. Gentleman surely knows of some classic research in which job applications were submitted containing exactly the same qualifications and background, but with one difference—one was in the name of Mr. or Mrs. Smith and the other bore a long, foreign-sounding name. The latter was always the subject of discrimination. We have tried to make changes in the Home Office to combat that. If people apply for a job, they will get an interview. There will be no shortlisting, so it does not matter what their name is. We have also increased mentoring.
Our efforts are now working and securing changes. The situation is by no means perfect, but staff in the Home Office have set up a network of black and Asian staff. In fact, I attended one of the most uplifting meetings that I have been to in the past three years, which saw 800 of our staff coming together voluntarily to work better with us to improve employment opportunities. We are seeing dramatic changes.
On the subject of the police, which the hon. Gentleman raised, the vast majority of the police—as Macpherson said—do not have a racist thought in their heads. Some have, and they should be drummed out of the police service—and the sooner the better. Like the police, the overwhelming majority of staff at every level in the Home Office do not have a racist intention in their bones. However, an institution can, because of its practices, work in a discriminatory way. That was what Macpherson said, and that is why he was right to say of the police, and all those other public authorities, that they were institutionally racist and that we needed to take action to deal with that. That is one of the reasons why I am so delighted that we are including indirect discrimination provisions in the Bill.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I confirm that what the Home Secretary has discovered in the Home Office was known in the Department of Employment in 1986, when the race relations employment advisory service produced a report. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the encouragement that he is giving to the Association of Black Police Officers to remove what some have seen as a concrete ceiling. Others have also been encouraged to do what they know is right. I suggest that those who doubt these things read an article in the British Medical Journal last week in which an Asian consultant wrote about having been told inadvertently that some jobs were for Indians and others were for whites.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman, who brings great commitment and experience to the subject, is right: it is still going on, and it will go on for as long as we are blind to the fact that it is going on or take the view of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis)—I say this with respect to him—that there is an exact similarity between the way institutions behave and the way in which individuals in that institution think they behave. We ought to know enough about institutional culture to know that that is not the case.
I shall deal briefly with national security. The Bill amends the national security provisions in the Race Relations Act, and that is achieved by clauses 6 and 7. For anyone who is worried about that, it is to bring the provisions into line with the European convention on human rights—not to detach it. The intelligence and security agencies are covered in terms of employment, and we thought that those agencies were quite keen on the provision. We considered whether they could be included in the Bill as a whole, but we did not find a way in which it would be possible for people to put in section 65 requests for information and to have those compatible with the basic purposes of the intelligence and security agencies and their need for secrecy.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I have answered the hon. Gentleman.
In conclusion, the House will be aware that, as Home Secretary, I am responsible for a significant number of the Bills that are being considered during this parliamentary Session. None, however, gives me more personal satisfaction than this one. The Bill comes out of a personal tragedy—the tragic murder of Stephen Lawrence, which brought to the attention of the white majority what it is like to be a member of a black or Asian community in Britain today.
The report into the death of Stephen Lawrence led the Opposition to welcome my announcement on 24 February 1999 of the Government's intention to carry out the first major update of the Race Relations Act since 1976.
The Bill is a very important one, and I am very proud to be responsible for it. It meets the commitments that the Government made in response to the Lawrence inquiry. It is an important part of this Government's wider agenda for achieving race equality and promoting the potential of a modern, multicultural society.
The Bill has already benefited from the scrutiny that it received during its passage in another place. I look forward to that scrutiny continuing in this House. I very much hope, given the nature and importance of the Bill, that it will be received warmly on all sides of the House as a major contribution to eliminating racial discrimination, and to achieving race equality.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: We on this side of the House remain unreservedly and absolutely opposed to racial discrimination. For that reason, we will support the Second Reading of the Bill today. However, we have some concerns about the implications of various aspects of the Bill, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to those aspects which I shall raise. I hope that there will be a proper opportunity to explore them in detail throughout the Bill's later stages, because we believe that some have serious implications. It is important that the effects should be those intended, rather than those not intended.
Everybody in our society has the right to expect equal treatment from every institution, and that includes the public services. I welcome any sensible and practical measures to assist in the fight to eradicate discrimination from our society. I say "sensible and practical" because while no one would dispute that the intentions behind the Bill are honourable, we are concerned that the practical implementation of certain of the measures contained within it—and, perhaps more importantly, some of the measures that we know will be contained within the Bill when it comes back to the Floor of the House—could serve as a hindrance, rather than a help in the elimination of racial discrimination.
I wish to refer to the police service, which has become subject to intense scrutiny since the publication of the Macpherson report into the aftermath of the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence. The police service is an effective force in the fight against crime in this country. I pay tribute, as would the Home Secretary, to the courage and dedication of the men and women of our police service. They, as individuals, feel that they have been subject to much unwarranted criticism in recent months. They feel that because the service has been branded "institutionally racist" that that rubs off on them. That is a serious consideration.
The Macpherson report says:
We accept that there are dangers in allowing the phrase to be used in order to try to express some overall criticism of the police, or any other organisation, without addressing its meaning.
The report goes on to define institutional racism. It says that it is the collective failure
of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.
Sir Paul Condon, the former Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, told the inquiry that labelling the police as "institutionally racist" would mean that the public
will assume a finding of conscious, wilful or deliberate action or inaction to the detriment of ethnic minority Londoners. They will assume the majority of good men and women who come into policing … go about their daily lives with racism in their minds and in their endeavour.
He said that the use of the term "institutional racism"
would undermine many of the endeavours to identify and respond to instances of racism which challenge all institutions and particularly the police.
No matter how it was conceived, I believe that the way in which the term "institutional racism" has been bandied about has done a great deal of unnecessary and unhelpful damage to the image of the police service in this country. However, I would go further. I ask the Home Secretary to consider whether the very use of that phrase—which effectively absolves individuals from responsibility for racist acts and lays the ultimate blame on the institution—can hamper the fight against racism at a personal level. Might it not also have an adverse effect on the morale and public image of the men and women in the police service, the vast majority of whom do not act with racism in their minds?
We have already witnessed a rise in London crime rates at a time when the number of stop and searches has fallen dramatically. I believe that there is a clear link between those two facts. The August 1999 summary to the interim Fitzgerald report into stop and search noted:
This fall in searches is also directly related to a rise in crime over the same period.
We have even heard the Prime Minister, in response to the first rise in crime since 1993, personally urge police to step up the use of stop-and-search powers. I am sure that the police would like to carry out as many stop and searches as they deem necessary, but they say that they are reluctant to do so because of the what they consider to be the climate of hostility directed at them. A recent survey found that 71 per cent. of Metropolitan police officers had become more reluctant to use stop-and-search powers since the publication of the Macpherson report.
There can be no dispute that it is right to act swiftly against any police officer intent on conducting his or her duty in a discriminatory manner. However, it is plainly wrong for members of our police service to feel that they cannot carry out their duty solely because their actions could be portrayed as discriminatory, even if that was not in their minds—or even if discrimination had never crossed their minds at all.
I hope that the Home Secretary will reassure the House that the operational effect of the police service, and of other public services, will not in any way be threatened by the interpretations that could be placed on the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. I can give her the assurance that she seeks, but I should like to take this opportunity to make two points. First, the changes in the Bill to make chief officers vicariously liable for the actions of individual officers will greatly help those individual officers, who as a result will not feel isolated, as used to be possible. It was an eccentricity of the courts that treated police officers—for these purposes, if not for any others—as office holders rather than employees. The change proposed in the Bill will help that.
My second point goes wider. In my judgment, the Bill contains nothing that should lead to any diminution in the effectiveness of policing. However, it contains a huge amount that will make the police service more effective. As long as people feel that they are the subject of discrimination—I am not talking about the police service—and that we do not live in a properly equal society, there are problems of disaffection and, ultimately, criminal behaviour. The Bill means that there will be even less excuse for criminal behaviour than there has been in the past.

Miss Widdecombe: I am partly reassured by that, but only partly. I will give the Home Secretary some examples when we look at the way in which the indirect discrimination provisions, when they are included in the Bill, will work. If the operational effectiveness of the police service is to be threatened in any way, we must look minutely at these provisions and think about them carefully.
On investigations into the police by the Commission for Racial Equality, I am not convinced that the CRE is the right body to examine allegations of racism in the police service. Surely it would be more appropriate for a single body to look at all complaints against the police, such as a truly independent Police Complaints Authority. We would then avoid having the PCA look into the operational aspects of a complaint of racism while the CRE was looking at the racial aspects. I hope that the Secretary of State will look at that issue before the Bill is considered in Committee.
I now turn to the inclusion of the indirect discrimination provisions, which the Government intend to include by way of an amendment at a later stage, despite previously expressing their deep reservations about including provisions on such discrimination in the Bill. In another place, Lord Bassam commented that outlawing indirect discrimination would have uncertain and potentially far-reaching effects on the Government's ability to make policy. He went on to argue that there would be too many frequent and counter-productive court challenges, and that indirect discrimination did not fit well with law enforcement. Can the Minister who winds up the debate explain why the Government have made this U-turn in their attitude to indirect discrimination?
The Home Secretary said in a written answer, when he announced the new policy:
the risk of spurious challenge is outweighed by the principle of including indirect discrimination in respect of public sector functions in the Bill.—[Official Report, 27 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 247W.]


Will he confirm that indirect discrimination will be included in the Bill to improve the practical effectiveness and fairness of our public services, and not simply as a rhetorical gesture to a perceived principle—a gesture that might do more harm than good and would not serve anybody's interests in the long term? I hope that the Home Secretary's change of mind on indirect discrimination will not be quite as disastrous as I believe his change of mind on abolishing the right to jury trial will probably be.
Can the Secretary of State tell us about the exact nature of the public services that might be affected by the inclusion of indirect discrimination provisions? For example, will police beat routes be open to challenge in the courts? The Home Secretary should think about it if he does not understand. How will the national health service be affected? What about the siting of fire stations, police stations and hospitals? Public bodies dealing with transport, including Transport for London, will presumably be covered. Will decisions on bus and rail routes and on timetables be open to challenge? Those are areas which were originally thought could be open to challenge. If we are being told that the Government have found some way of fining the measure so that such challenges will not be made, I would like to hear it. If not, and those things will be open to challenge, I would like to hear what practical effects that might have.

Mr. Straw: The detailed points that the right hon. Lady raises can be answered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and in Committee. However, the House may be a little confused: the right hon. Lady says that she supports the principle of the Bill, but it is unclear which part of its contents she supports. I hope that she will not get herself into the position, which I forbore from mentioning, that her predecessor got into in 1965 and 1968 on a similar tack.
As to the right hon. Lady's examples—and I am very happy to provide her with all the information that I considered—the way in which the courts have interpreted section 1(1)(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976, which outlaws racial discrimination that is indirect only if it is unjustified, show that the courts have been very accommodating to the public authorities. I gave the example of the Manpower Services Commission and there is a stream of others. In one of the examples that she gave, it would have to be palpable that a senior police officer was organising the beats in order to be racially discriminatory, which I doubt. If he was doing it to ensure that the area was properly policed and that he was covering the areas of highest crime and highest complaint, there would not be the least argument.
My final point—and I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene—is that I have been perfectly open about the Government's anxieties about whether it was safe to incorporate section 1(1)(b). As a result of continuing discussion inside and outside Government, my colleagues and I were persuaded that it was safe to do so.

Miss Widdecombe: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that response. He asked me about my support for the Bill. We have said that we support the principle, and that

the provisions that currently govern the private sector should be extended to all parts of the public sector. There is no argument about our adherence to that principle.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: Let me finish, because the right hon. Gentleman asked me the question—which he should not have done in an intervention, anyway. We are concerned about the addition, at a late stage, of indirect discrimination provisions. The principle may be fine, but we know well that if we make bad law around noble principles, the consequences are nasty. We are trying to do our duty—to scrutinise the likely consequences and possible effects of this measure.
It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to brush aside what I have just said as if it were of no consequence. Why, then, did his Minister, in another place, make exactly these points and say that that was why the Government were not going to include indirect discrimination in the Bill?

Mr. Straw: I was not brushing aside the right hon. Lady's comments as if they were of no consequence—I was giving her an answer.
The right hon. Lady will come to regret her assertion that one is not allowed to ask questions in interventions. I will bear that in mind the next time I have the Floor. Indeed, I will never let her forget it.
The right hon. Lady talks about it being fine to apply to the public sector that which already applies to the private sector. That was the killer argument in respect of indirect discrimination. Section 1(1)(b) already applies to the private sector. Therefore, it becomes very difficult—not impossible, because I tried it—to argue that it should not apply to the public sector as well.

Miss Widdecombe: It is all right for the Opposition to ask questions of the Government in interventions. That is what we are supposed to do, because the Government have Executive responsibility. I again ask the Home Secretary the question that he has persistently refused to answer. I will even sit down and let him reply. Why, if this is so obvious and I am being so unreasonable, did his Government take exactly this line until very recently, with Lord Bassam enunciating the sort of arguments that I am making now?

Mr. Straw: I have not, on this occasion, accused the right hon. Lady of being wholly unreasonable. There is no great secret about this. There was a process of discussion and debate about this in Government. The right hon. Lady knows the processes of Government, to some extent better than I do. At least I did not have to argue with my ministerial colleagues in the Home Office.
An initial view was formed about where the balance of argument lay, and that is obvious from the record. I do not think that we should be criticised for having listened to the arguments, not least to the debate in the other place. People cannot have it both ways. It was always a relatively finely balanced argument. Lord Bassam spelt out our anxieties, but I am pleased to say that the more I went into it, the more I could assuage colleagues about


where the balance of the argument lay. The point about the provisions already applying to the private sector was very important when it came to weighing that balance.

Miss Widdecombe: I hope that we shall be able to test at length in Committee the concerns that the Government previously held but which they claim to have resolved in a very short time—indeed, a record time, even for a Government of many U-turns.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On the basis that I, too, may ask questions, will the right hon. Lady reflect that while it may have taken the Government a little time to be persuaded by arguments about indirect discrimination—she may not yet be quite persuaded—the time taken has been rather longer in the context of European Union law? EU courts and member states have accepted that a law that did not outlaw indirect discrimination in the customs union would have made that union impossible. The argument has been won in other areas of law, as her party accepted when in Government, even if it has not yet quite been won in this area.

Miss Widdecombe: It will be won only once we have given it thorough discussion and examination. The worries so recently entertained by the Government, which we still hold, must be resolved. A parliamentary process exists for doing so, and I hope that we shall not be as rushed as we were last night. The Home Secretary looks puzzled by that remark, but we were debating one of our own Bills—the Representation of the People Bill—and had 35 minutes in which to discuss 100 Lords amendments. I hope that this Bill will be given the most thorough scrutiny.
I have a question for the Home Secretary. He will say, "No, no, no", but I should like to hear why not. Why will not his plan to introduce a £10,000 bond for those who wish to enter the UK from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh—but nowhere else—be in breach of the Government's proposed indirect discrimination legislation? He appears to have no answer to that. Does he?

Mr. Straw: As I recall, the Opposition supported that proposal. It is a bit rich of the right hon. Lady to complain about it. She supported almost all our proposals, including abolition of the white list, opposing only the introduction of severe penalties for truck drivers who bring in clandestine immigrants.

Miss Widdecombe: Is it not discriminatory?

Mr. Straw: No, it will not be discriminatory. We are running a pilot scheme before final decisions come to be made about the bond scheme. Wherever we pilot it, it is not discriminatory because it is a pilot.

Miss Widdecombe: Ah. So if the pilot is successful, the £10,000 bond will become universal? Is that right? Is the Home Secretary saying yes to that?

Mr. Straw: I return to the explanation I offered the House on the amendments on immigration. Immigration and asylum law, by definition, distinguishes between

people of different nationalities, and sometimes ethnic origins, so the Bill contains perfectly sensible savings. That is the answer to the right hon. Lady's question.

Miss Widdecombe: So indirect discrimination will apply to individual immigration officers, but not to Government policy. Okay.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: Is the hon. Gentleman speaking for the Government or the Opposition today?

Mr. Hughes: I wish I were in the Government and speaking for them, but that must wait another month or two.
In the interests of trying to resolve an important point, may I say that I have asked myself the question that the right hon. Lady is putting to the Home Secretary, and have concluded that the exemption that allows nationality to be a reason for exemption from indirect and direct discrimination law is the reason why that would be permitted? There may be another issue about whether applying the nationality test might have other indirect consequences, but the white Indian—the Anglo-Saxon Indian—will be discriminated against under the Government's proposals in the same way as an Indian of Asian origin.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman goes a long way to bail out the Home Secretary, and does so with rather greater clarity than the right hon. Gentleman. However, despite what he has said, I am worried. If the Bill will apply to the immigration and asylum system in general, might it not lead to many appeals on grounds of racial discrimination, causing yet more delays in the system and probably increasing even further the famous backlog of asylum cases? Given the enormous pressures that the immigration and nationality directorate is already under, will such a Bill simply make the system even more ineffective?
It is not impossible to imagine a scenario in which almost every legitimate, reasoned decision taken by the IND would be subjected to the appeals process to delay possible removal from the UK rather than because of rational claims of racial discrimination. If that happened, it would undermine legitimate claims of discrimination, and be grossly unfair to those whose claims for asylum are genuine or who have a valid reason for wanting to enter the UK.
Will the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department tell us the estimated increased cost to public authorities and the legal aid budget that will result from the Bill? If he cannot, will he write to me? The Government described the costs as "significant" in the explanatory notes to the Bill, yet they have described calculating any such costs as an "impossible" task. On what basis, therefore, did the Government decide that the costs would be significant, and if that is indeed the case, will departmental budgets be able to cover successfully the significantly increased burden placed on them? Has the Home Secretary undertaken a detailed study of the financial implications of the inclusion of indirect discrimination in the Bill? If he has, may we have the benefit of those calculations?
Working for better race relations does not have to be restricted to acting sternly against our organisations and institutions, and imposing sanctions and prohibitions. It must be a reasoned and responsible partnership that acts in everybody's interests to ensure that all members of society feel they are treated equally and fairly. We will, therefore, support the Bill at this stage, in the hope that it will improve race relations, but we have a responsibility to ensure that our public services remain effective and efficient, that they are not hampered by spurious legal challenges and that any legislation is implemented with those aims in mind.
I look forward—perhaps a trifle optimistically—to a sensible and careful consideration of all elements contained in the Bill, and I hope that effective and meaningful race relations will result.

Mr. Piara S. Khabra: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his comprehensive proposals to address racism. I should like to outline how bad race relations were during the 1960s and early 1970s before the passage of the Race Relations Act 1976. Racial discrimination was entrenched in the minds of people who never hesitated to show their feelings in public. In addition, racial violence against individuals was common. I shall give some examples of the sort of treatment that ethnic minorities received in public places at the hands of racists.
In my constituency, in the mid-1960s, public houses used to refuse drinks to non-white customers. That deliberate and naked racism confronted members of the non-white minority. I once went to a public house with a couple of friends, and I asked at the bar for drinks. We were refused by the management, and we faced a barrage of racist insults and physical threats. The same thing happened in other public houses.
I complained to the Race Relations Board, but it had no power to prosecute publicans. It could only investigate, which was not helpful in any way. I emphasise that I regularly receive racist hate mail, both from within this country and from abroad.
After campaigning and lobbying for a long time, I was happy when the Labour Government passed the Race Relations Act 1976; that was a step in the right direction, although it did not have the teeth to bite. The Commission for Racial Equality and local community relations councils were set up under it. However, despite that legislation and extensive campaigning by the CRE, race equality councils, community organisations, trade unions and the Labour party, the practice of racism by individuals, employers and public authorities never stopped. It is time to give further powers to public authorities under race relations legislation to deal with any form of racism.
I welcome the Bill. It is a considerable improvement on the 1976 Act in several respects. I speak as someone who, as a community leader in Southall, was calling for improved race relations in 1976. I gave evidence as to what was needed to the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration in May 1973. Although we still need to improve outdated legislation, we live in a much more tolerant society than 25 years ago when the 1976 Act was introduced. It is important that new legislation reflect those changes.
The purpose of the Bill is to extend the 1976 Act to a wide range of the functions of public authorities that are not covered by it. I welcome the extension of the Act to all activities of the police and other bodies that involve direct discrimination or victimisation.
I was pleased that, while the Bill was in the House of Lords, the Government announced their decision
to extend the indirect discrimination provisions to public service functions.
An individual will thus be able to mount a challenge in the courts on those grounds. Ministers, officials, law enforcers and other office holders in public authorities listed in the measure will be subject to that provision.
I welcome especially clauses 1 and 2. Clause 1 introduces new section 19B, which declares unlawful discrimination by public authorities. Subsection (1) makes it unlawful for any public body or office holder
to discriminate, in carrying out any of its functions, against another person.
Clause 2 amends section 76 of the 1976 Act, which deals with public appointments. It will bring within the Act Crown appointments and those made by Departments and Ministers. At present, those posts are not protected under the employment provisions of the 1976 Act. Where Crown appointments are dependent on ministerial or departmental recommendations or approvals, the Bill provides that there must be no discrimination at any stage of the process.
In the wake of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, I am pleased that the Metropolitan police are showing a determined effort to cut out racism in their ranks. That will be greatly helped by the recruitment of ethnic minority policemen and women. I am keen to promote police work as a career for the ethnic minority in my constituency.
However, I am a realist. I know that attitudes do not change overnight and that legislative safeguards are necessary. In the long run, I hope that they will not have to be used in cases of racial discrimination—because there will be no such cases.
I welcome the Government's announcement that the Bill will also lay a positive duty on public authorities to promote racial equality. Its operation in practice and its enforcement will be decided after consultation. I am sure that, during the remaining stages of the Bill, the Government will listen carefully to the CRE's proposals for the operation, monitoring and enforcement of that duty, and that they will also take into account proposals made by other interest groups.
I agree with the view expressed by the CRE that the Bill could serve as a tool to expose how racial discrimination by one public authority could lead to discrimination by another. For example, the commission pointed out that, over several years, discriminatory allocation of council housing led to the concentration of ethnic minority tenants on certain sink estates. It would not be surprising to find that, as tenants on such estates, ethnic minority households were also discriminated against by public bodies providing other services, such as education, health or policing.
The Bill would enable such discrimination to be challenged, regardless of whether it occurs directly—on racial grounds—indirectly because of a bad address, or both.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the CRE several times. He obviously knows much about that organisation. Will he enlighten the House as to why it went through a stormy patch when the West Indians and Asians were at loggerheads? The matter was well reported by one of the commissioners, Mrs. Cluff. Does he think that that was a case of discrimination by one group against another, or not?

Mr. Khabra: The CRE was set up in 1976 to address the issue of racism in this country. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's party was not happy that an institution was established to fight racism.
It would not be surprising to find that public bodies providing services such as education, health or policing discriminated against ethnic minority tenants on estates such as I described. In my constituency, where the Tories were in control for 13 years, that happened on many council estates.
The Bill would enable such discrimination to be challenged. I agree with the CRE that
a positive duty to promote racial equality would require all the relevant authorities to examine the outcome of their policies and practices and to identify and change those that are discriminatory.
Labour Governments have always been at the forefront in combating racial discrimination. The Labour party, the trade unions and many other groups campaigned in that fight for many years despite the fact that the Conservative Government had no intention of introducing legislation to root out racism in this country.
The Labour Government introduced the Race Relations Acts of 1968 and 1976. I am proud to be an ethnic minority Labour MP when a Labour Government are introducing another vital piece of race legislation that will benefit not only many of my constituents, but all ethnic minorities throughout the UK. That is in contrast to the Tories, who in their rule did nothing to ensure that public bodies were subject to the full force of the 1976 Act despite the fact that they were in power for 18 years. They allowed unemployment among the ethnic minorities to grow steadily, which in turn left them feeling totally disillusioned with politics.
I have campaigned for inclusive politics all my political life and from long before I became a Member of Parliament. I welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction towards that ultimate goal.

Sir Peter Lloyd: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra). He has long personal experience of the issues covered by the Bill, and I am sorry that his involvement in them has led him to be in continuing receipt of hate mail. That is extraordinarily unpleasant.
I shall touch on some things that the hon. Gentleman said in his speech with rather less agreement, but I am glad that the Government have introduced the Bill. However, my welcome for it would have been much more muted, if the Home Secretary had not announced his intention to table amendments to extend it to cover indirect discrimination in the public sector, which is not covered by the Race Relations Act 1976. As the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Home Secretary, have said, it must be wrong that

the state, which should protect all its citizens, may discriminate unfairly on the basis of race when private organisations cannot. It has become plain that that anomaly must be removed if ethnic minorities are to feel confident that public institutions give them equal respect and value. I am sorry that that was not done sooner, not least by the Government of whom I was a member.
I return to the points made by the hon. Member for Southall and to the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked of the Home Secretary. The anomaly was not removed earlier because it is assumed that Governments are always virtuous and look after everyone, so that the law is not needed. It is assumed that they have loftier purposes than private organisations and may sometimes need to discriminate to achieve these higher ends for everyone. It follows that Governments are such a complex mystery that disgruntled people may not discern their higher purpose or practical necessity and so bring a stream of vexatious actions that undermine or frustrate wise policy and good administration. There is something to be said for those views, and I shall return to the last point in due course. But they go a long way to explaining why the previous Government left matters as they were and why the present Government introduced the Bill in its present form and intended to extend the law to cover only direct discrimination in that part of the public sector not covered by the 1976 Act.
Despite the Macpherson recommendations, the Bill was initially prepared only to make direct discrimination by subordinates unlawful while it would have preserved the immunity of Ministers, senior decision makers and the policy-making process. I am glad that pressure from both sides in the other place caused the Government to think again, and I was happy to hear that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald is prepared to be convinced, too.
We all know that the genesis of the Bill was the Macpherson inquiry into the police handling of the appallingly unhappy case of the Stephen Lawrence murder. I declare my interest as parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation as recorded in the Register of Members' Interests. I emphasise that I seek to advise the federation; I do not speak for it and I am not doing so in this debate, except perhaps to say that it has long made genuine and consistent efforts to create an environment in which black and Asian officers feel valued and at home in the police service. I am sure that its chairman, Fred Broughton, will appreciate the Home Secretary's kind and well justified reference to him.
I am sure that it would harm the police's interests if they continued to be outside the full range of the 1976 Act, especially if the rest of the public sector were brought within its scope. Suspicion, from which they already suffer, would continue to multiply without any satisfactory opportunity to put it to the test. Reform would continue to be ignored by a large swathe of public opinion and its effectiveness would be discounted if there were no access to the courts. But it is understandable that the police, like the other parts of the public sector now to be brought under the 1976 Act, should be apprehensive about how the extended law will work and how it will impinge on their operational effectiveness.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend is on to an important point. For example,


the Kent police are involved in intelligence-led policing and one of the things that they do is keep a close record of the friends of villains. That is one way of extending their net of whom to finger. If institutional changes affect that form of policing, the police are in dire danger of being picked up on the day that they move against someone who happens to be innocent—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is too long.

Sir Peter Lloyd: I hope that my hon. Friend will have a chance to develop that point further. If he is suggesting that the extension of the provisions for indirect discrimination will make it harder for the police to gather and follow up evidence on the contacts of the individuals whom they know to be criminals, I do not think that it will have that effect.
Let us consider the example of stop and search, which has often been referred to, including by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald. The fear has been expressed that the possibility of challenges in court will further reduce the police's ability or their confidence to use that necessary power. However, the evidence is that the power has been undermined already by criticism and complaint, and the police are now reported to be reluctant to use it even when they should. I am sure that the only practical remedy is for stop and search procedures to be clearly on all fours with the law, so that their robust and necessary execution stands up in court. The natural response is that that is easily said, but hard to achieve without making stop and search ineffectual. I understand that argument, but the law gives the police the power to stop and search when that is operationally justified. That is a similar point to the one that I made earlier in response to my hon. Friend.
When the powers are challenged, sensible decisions by the courts will give the police more confidence to use them effectively than in the present twilight world of misused statistics, media criticism and their own disciplinary proceedings carried out with an eye on what the newspapers will say. The same is true to a greater or lesser extent of the immigration service, the Prison Service and those who work in health and safety and other parts of the public sector. It is right that people who have been treated unfairly by any part of the public sector because of their race or colour should have a means of remedy. It is socially corrosive when they do not.
Both the complainant and the individual or organisation that is complained about will have to be able to rely on the court's ability to get to the heart of the issue and apply the law with common sense and proportion. The Bill's success will depend on the wisdom and insight demonstrated by the court. By success, I mean creating among every ethnic group the conviction that they are being treated fairly, without creating among officials the belief that they can no longer do their job effectively.
That is made more difficult by the fact, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald also referred, that Macpherson lighted on the phrase "institutional racism" to describe the underlying problem. Unfortunately, it has journalistic panache, and I cannot see any alternative phrase displacing it. Not many people would seriously argue with the report's definition of the phrase, on which the Home Secretary accurately

and eloquently expanded in response to an intervention. However, I am afraid that most people do not listen to these debates or read the small print in reports. They absorb headlines, and the phrase, unexplained, powerfully suggests a deliberate, officially sanctioned policy of treating unfairly people from racial minorities. That is not fair to any part of the public sector—not the police, the immigration service or the Prison Service.
If that impression is allowed to continue, other public sector groups, as well as the police, will feel resentment and a sense of injustice at what they presume the public thinks them guilty of. The same process will also lead ethnic minorities and others to believe that their worst suspicions have been justified. We are in danger of finding ourselves in a confrontational situation in which both sides feel unjustly treated and in which it will be harder to achieve the positive attitudes necessary for rooting out the unfair assumptions and practices that are wittingly, or more often unwittingly, manifested in parts of the public sector.
As I said, the Government and their senior advisers are bound to have the added worry that making indirect discrimination in the public sector unlawful will open up official policy and procedures to interminable challenge that they discriminate in their effect on different ethnic groups. That fear is not as real as is often made out. Only 3 per cent. of cases in which the law presently applies are concerned with indirect discrimination, although I can well believe that the proportion will rise among cases in which the public sector is concerned. However, that need not become a matter of acute concern. After all, the law does not ban policies that have a disproportionate effect on different social groups if the policies are justified in their own terms and are applied in a manner that produces the least disproportionate effect possible.
The fears of the immigration service, particularly concerning asylum, which are shared by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, were spelled out by the Minister in another place and mentioned by the Home Secretary. Those fears do not take into account the way in which the law is supposed to work. I have no doubt that the Bill will lead to changes in the way in which the public sector manages itself, but there is no reason why it should put well-founded, justifiable policies at risk. It will make the implementation of some of those policies fairer than it is now.
That happy state of affairs will not necessarily be arrived at easily or quickly. Public sector policies and practices are complex and varied. It is easy to see discrimination where none exists, and where it does exist, it is easy to mistake the cause and the remedy, particularly where indirect discrimination is alleged. The wisdom of the courts would be tested if, unaided, they had to resolve every such complaint. We badly need an expert body to investigate complaints of indirect discrimination that has the confidence of the complainants and the respect of the public sector organisations being complained about.
The Commission for Racial Equality was set up to fulfil that role, and it has performed a number of constructive investigations, including in the Ministry of Defence and the NHS. I know better its campaign to get racism out of football, in which it sought to work with football clubs and the football authorities, supporting them in a mostly successful effort to tackle a problem on which the clubs and authorities had not properly focused before.
That approach will be badly needed if the Bill is to work effectively. I am not at all sure whether the CRE is now well enough resourced or whether it has a sufficient range of skills, expertise and experience to do this much more demanding job in the public sector as thoroughly as it should be done.
Statistics showing disproportionality in some aspects of public policy do not prove discrimination, as so many people think. They may be a symptom that should be investigated, but they are not proof. There needs to be an independent body with knowledge of the public sector, capable of looking behind the figures and the complaints, to advise whether there is an issue to be addressed and, if there is, able to help the department concerned to address it so that there is seldom, if ever, any need to come to trial.
I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will be able to tell the House that the Government have thought very hard on that point, because much of the Bill's usefulness, especially the duty that it is placing on public sector organisations to promote racial equality, will, in large measure, depend on it.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: Nobody should doubt the Bill's importance, although the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), said that she is convinced of its importance and then proceeded to make a speech in which it was not clear whether or not the Conservative party supports the Bill at all, in so far as it refers to indirect discrimination. I can only suggest to the right hon. Lady that a little time spent quietly with the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), whose enthusiasm for and commitment to this cause we all appreciate, might be very useful before the Bill goes into Committee.
Nobody should doubt, either, the significance of the Bill being introduced by a Labour Government who are going further than the recommendations of the Macpherson report. The Bill extends the Race Relations Act 1976 not only to the police but to the functions of all public authorities. The Government are right to have signalled their intention to extend the Bill to encompass indirect discrimination.
The Bill is not only needed by those who will be, because of the colour of their skin, protected by it, but it will be good for everyone who lives in Britain, whether black or white. For anyone who does not feel compelled by the Bill's purpose of furthering the cause of equal rights and opportunities, I quote what President Kennedy said in 1963:
Who among us would be content to have the colour of his skin changed and stand in his place?
Civil rights should be at the heart of any responsible Government. Discrimination, wherever it is found, is a curse. Hon. Members will know from my past in the House that I have always taken the view that wherever we find discrimination, we should root it out, because discrimination in whatever form it takes is abhorrent and repugnant. It is a weapon that enforces division, and there should be no compromise of basic principles.
I regret the fact that the shadow Home Secretary did not take the opportunity this afternoon to state her commitment to ensuring that discrimination will be rooted

out not only as it relates to ethnic minorities, but in other facets of our society, such as in matters of gender or sexuality. That should mean that ours is a society in which there is no second-class citizenship for any British man or woman anywhere.
Although we can look back on the strides that we have made towards creating an equal and more just society, no hon. Member should fail to observe how much further we still have to go. There is a choice about the kind of nation we want to be and the direction in which we want to move. We can move in the direction of division, and we can tolerate that division. It is my view that we have tolerated division for far too long. We can also move in a direction which removes division—the direction of one nation.
The division with which we live—the division between white and black, whatever the degree of tolerance that some people would proffer—makes us, in truth, an intolerant society. That intolerance will be fed by fear and hatred, and hatred will breed violence and lawlessness.
The other choice, which is a harder route to pursue, is to live together as one nation—not a nation that subjugates the identity of a minority to that of a majority, but a nation that celebrates its diversity, in which men and women respect one another for their character, not for the colour of their skin. For that, we will need understanding, compassion, wisdom, justice and a sense of doing what is right.
There are still too many in this country and, regrettably, in the House whom we must seek to persuade if we are to change. Our culture must change. Although I shall not focus my remarks today on the issue of immigration, we should not let this moment pass without commenting on the shadow Home Secretary's proposal to bring back the primary purpose rule, which the Government rightly abolished.
It is a dreadful contradiction of the essential decency of this nation that a political party would consider introducing legislation which even the Conservative candidate for London mayor has described as "disgusting and immoral". That pernicious, divisive rule discriminated particularly against people trying to move to Britain from Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Does the shadow Home Secretary believe that Britain is a better country for such racist discrimination?
Perhaps the House should not be surprised by the way in which some Tories will use discrimination for short-term political gain. The shadow Cabinet Office Minister recently said that immigration was
an issue which … played particularly well in the tabloids, and has more potential to hurt.
Such a view should be repugnant to any decent person. It should be condemned, not championed, by the Leader of the Opposition. It beggars belief that anyone could contemplate using the topic of immigration to hurt, or discrimination as a weapon to stir up prejudice and thereby secure votes; yet such prejudices lie deep within some in the Conservative party. That was one of the reasons why I left that party.
The Conservative party will whip its Members to keep discrimination in place on section 28, yet on a day like today it will signal to its Members that the debate is of so little importance that they can attend other business


elsewhere. In other words, when discrimination can be used against people, there is a three-line Whip, but when it cannot, Conservatives Members can take the day off.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that that is an unfair point, given that we are not opposing the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Woodward: Some Conservative Members may support the Bill, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, on section 28, for example, his party felt so strongly that it could not allow a vote of conscience. On an issue such as the Bill, it would send a strong signal to the country if the Conservative party had a three-line Whip—if its Members were present and if they were prepared to stand up and say that the Bill mattered. Belonging as they do to a party which for 18 years did nothing to implement the recommendations of the Commission for Racial Equality, perhaps it is not surprising that they are not so prepared.
In March last year, during the debate on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) told the House:
It is fair to say that some unpalatable truths have to be faced, one of which is the fact that no Government have ever received a mandate to turn the United Kingdom into a multiracial society.—[Official Report, 29 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 819.]
What a great excuse for indifference.
Regrettably, the hon. Gentleman is not alone in his indifference. During 18 years of Conservative government, very little legislative progress was made towards better race relations. Twice the Commission for Racial Equality submitted reviews arguing that public bodies should be included in the scope of the Race Relations Act 1976, and twice that recommendation was rejected. Indifference reigned.
Tragically, it has taken the death of Stephen Lawrence and the inquiry into the police investigation following his death to achieve those demands, almost a quarter of a century later.
The House knows that the Conservative Government also refused to set up an inquiry into the police investigation after Stephen's death. That was, rightly, one of the first acts of the present Home Secretary in 1997.
The Bill will ensure that public bodies, the police and the Prison Service will fall within the scope of our laws to beat discrimination. The amendments to bring indirect indiscrimination within the compass of the Bill are crucial, as are those to promote racial equality. Fairness and equality before the law are the only decent course that we can follow, because discrimination is indecent, and the pursuit of decency is a moral quest.
Why has it taken Stephen Lawrence's death and so many other deaths, so many cases of discrimination, to achieve the Bill? Dante wrote:
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality.
What neutrality and what indifference we have seen—indifference not least from some members of the Opposition.
Only three months ago, on "Newsnight", the then shadow Chancellor, now charged by the Conservative party with responsibility for foreign affairs, said of the Bill:
I think people listening to this will think that this will have very little to do with the concerns that they have.

What an appalling statement. What an indictment of the role of leadership. Where is the essential decency in such an admission?
Does the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) think that the majority of decent people in Britain are not troubled by the death of Stephen Lawrence and the failure of the police investigation of that death, or about why and how the family was so badly treated afterwards; or about the family of Michael Menson, a young musician with mental health problems, who was stopped by three men in Edmonton outside a telephone box and turned into a human torch; or about Ricky Reel, who left home one day and did not come back, and whose body was found in a river; or about Errol and Jason McGowan, an uncle and nephew who were both found dead within months in highly suspicious circumstances?
Do those on the Conservative Front Bench think that people do not worry about such things? Do they subscribe to the view of the present shadow Foreign Secretary? What does it say if our most senior Opposition politicians will not take a leading role in raising the issue from neutrality and indifference to one of pressing need?
Would those politicians willingly change the colour of their skin? Would they be happy to settle for the barriers to opportunity that still confront the black man or woman in this country, or the same expectations of poor health? Would they exchange their lives for that of the Bangladeshi? There is a terrible culture of contentment, too easily seen among some people, even in the House.
As the hon. Member for Aldershot told the House last year, he regretted
that some people who have come here freely and others who have sought refuge in this country appear no longer content to learn and accept our native customs and traditions, but wish to assert their own.
He told the House of his fears when he described
the threat of indoctrination in our schools to make children "value cultural diversity".—[Official Report, 29 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 819.]
His views are not unique; they are shared by noble Lords, such as Lord Tebbit, who fears that multiculturalism will divide our society.
The hon. Member for Aldershot is not alone even in this place. He justifies his views by saying that minorities represent only 6 per cent. of the population. His advice is that they need to be more understanding of us and our centuries-old culture. There we have it: them and us; black versus white; division at the heart of our society and our policy making. That is wrong, wrong, wrong.
How are we to achieve a better society if we accept that corrosive division? How will we improve confidence in our police—or, indeed, life for our police—if we ask them to be the ambassadors of that policy of division? Such divisiveness and the acceptance of the existence of two nations should not be tolerated. I am glad to say that it is not acceptable to the new Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who is determined to root out such attitudes, not only among the police, but among those who claim to support the police.
Yet some people still tolerate division and a society that is hostile and unequal, separated by a racial chasm. How can it be right for white Britain to continue to ask of its black citizens extra patience and perseverance that white people have never required of themselves?

Dr. Julian Lewis: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am a third generation descendant of an immigrant family.


My family recognised that it was incumbent on us to adapt ourselves to some extent to the history and culture of the country to which we were coming. It is not unreasonable to ask that of people who have chosen to make their lives here.

Mr. Woodward: It is not unreasonable to ask anybody to adapt to a situation, but there is a difference between adapting and being forced to reject one's entire ethnic culture. The hon. Gentleman's comments lie behind many observations that Conservative Members make.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: During 18 years of Conservative Government, there were at least five people in the Cabinet whose parents, grandparents or great-grandparents came to this country with almost nothing. Can we be sure that, in the next two or three generations, the same can be said of those who are black and Asian? That is the test.

Mr. Woodward: That is a perfectly fair point. However, I suspect that it will take a long time.
I ask hon. Members who speak of electoral mandates that have not been sought to create a multi-racial society to consider what the young black man or woman can still feel all too easily in Britain. Anyone listening to this afternoon's debate could be forgiven for believing that there is not much of a problem, that our discussion is an accessory debate that we do not need to hold. What do many black people feel when they watch television commercials that tell them that life is impossible without the latest product, but they have not got a financial prayer of buying it?
As Robert Kennedy once asked, what must these people's frustrations be? Young men and women, who desperately want to be part of our society, find themselves repeatedly excluded. What must they feel when they know that the chances are that they will receive only a second-rate education, that their children are four or five times more likely to be excluded from our schools, that they are unlikely to get a decent job and that they will be confronted by prejudice, direct and indirect?
Some who listen to this afternoon's debate may wonder why we are discussing the definition of institutionalised racism. The shadow Home Secretary clearly does not accept it. I remind the House of the words of the Macpherson report:
The term institutional racism should be understood to refer to the way the institution or the organisation may systematically or repeatedly treat … people differentially because of their race.
It is not about individuals but about the net effect of the system.
If we consider the net effect of the system in Britain today, a pretty damning picture is revealed. Seventy-five per cent. of ethnic minority people live in metropolitan areas. Too often, they are concentrated in the poorest and worst parts of those cities, and live in run-down and overcrowded housing conditions. They ow that they are more likely to suffer ill health.
How must it feel for young black people to know that they are more than twice as likely as their white counterparts to be unemployed? A black woman—I accept that I am using a general term—knows that her chances of being unemployed are three times greater than

if she was white. How must it feel to know that one's pay will be low, that others will get the top jobs, that poor conditions will prevail at work, that one's family will be twice as likely to live below the poverty line?
We must always be conscious of the danger of banding groups together. Nearly 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of Pakistanis or Bangladeshis live well below the poverty line. What does that tell those people about the opportunities that are available to them, and about their inclusion in—or exclusion from—our society?
What does our system of justice say?

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Woodward: In a moment.
We all worry about being victims of crime. However, most crime is random and could happen to anyone. Racist crime is different. The victims know that they were chosen because of the colour of their skin. Black people take extra steps to make their homes secure; they often stay home at night. Victimisation is worse because it is often repeated. Often, it is deadly. As the hon. Member for Aldershot has often reminded the House, ethnic minorities may make up only 6 per cent. of the population, but their members constituted one in-.six of all homicides in the past three years. I give way.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. turncoat Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), but if the United Kingdom is so bleak after his new party has been in government for three years, why do so many people come to these islands from so many different parts of the world? They come here not because it might be a little better than Bangladesh, but because they have heard that Britain is a fair and prosperous country.

Mr. Woodward: The hon. Gentleman obviously feels self-satisfied when he makes such remarks, which only trivialise the debate. I shall not reply to the nonsense expressed by the hon. Gentleman. It does nothing to recommend his party, and nothing to recommend this country as a decent, civilised society.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Woodward: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
While there seems little hope of having crime cleared up for many black people, the chances of black people being suspected as criminals are disproportionate. Black people may constitute only 6 per cent. of our society, but one in six of those stopped and searched are from ethnic minorities.
Despite the comments of the hon. Member for Aldershot, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis believes that that is a serious problem. In one of our recent conversations, I was pleased to note that he did not draw the crude conclusion of the shadow Home Secretary, that there is a simple causal link between the change of policy last year and the exponential rise in crime in the past 12 months.
We all accept that stop and search is a useful tool in the fight against crime, but stopping people simply because their skin is black should have no place in the


criminal justice system. Searching people because their skin is black should have no place in the criminal justice system either. Stop and search should be based on facts, not prejudice. Yet the figures demonstrate why black people feel threatened and persecuted. The law should protect everyone; many black people feel that it does not protect them. As a society, we must never accept that police misconduct is an unavoidable price to pay for cracking down on crime. We should not have to choose between them.

Ms Karen Buck: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the borough police commander in Kensington, who has developed effective intelligence-based policing in respect of stop and search? That has resulted in the number of stops and searches decreasing, the disparity between the number of black and white people who are stopped and searched narrowing and arrests increasing significantly. That proves that intelligence-based policing is progressive in terms of equality and effective as a crimefighting strategy.

Mr. Woodward: I congratulate the police in that area. That example, contrary to what the shadow Home Secretary seems to believe, is being pursued in other parts of the world. In America, for example, Boston community leaders have participated in such schemes. Crime is falling, trust in the police is rising—particularly in minority communities—and that pattern is being repeated in such places as Chicago, San Diego and Houston.
Like any other individuals, black people, like white people, will sometimes be genuine suspects, but that should not deny them the same rights and the same protection in police custody. There is surely no satisfactory explanation for why 29 per cent. of those who die in police custody are black when 6 per cent. of the population are black. It is deeply worrying to all hon. Members—or at least it should be—that only one of the 75 cases of the death of a black person in custody recorded by the Institute of Race Relations resulted in the prosecution of the police, and in only one case has the family of the deceased received compensation.
As Afro-Caribbean and Asian communities too often feel mistreated and, in the past, victimised by police, reports of deaths in police custody increase fear and mistrust, regardless of the cause. We need to understand ethnic minorities' lack of confidence in the investigation of those deaths. I say to the Home Secretary that surely it would be better to have a policy under which every death in police custody would be investigated by a completely independent tribunal. That would go a long way to restoring the confidence of ethnic minorities in our capital city and elsewhere in this country. They need to know how and why those deaths happened—racial bias, poor training or both?
There has to be a problem when such a body as the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination reported three years ago that
it is noted with serious concern that among the victims of deaths in custody are a disproportionate number of members of minority groups. That police brutality appears to affect members of minority groups disproportionately. That allegations of police brutality and harassment are repeatedly not vigorously investigated. And perpetrators, once guilt is established, not appropriately punished.

Based on the many inquiries into alleged police brutality, there can be no doubt that they do not provide reasonable explanations—whatever they are—for the numerous accounts of lax or hostile policing reported in the United Kingdom.
The Bill will rightly apply to the Prison Service. It is of course right in certain cases that people who commit crimes go to prison, but what does the knowledge that they are six times more likely to go to prison than a white person say to the young black man or woman? We need to understand more about why they end up in prison. It is simple to condemn them, but very difficult to understand and change the patterns.
The Bill will bring discrimination against ethnic minorities, when in prison, within the compass of civil rights. My goodness, it is needed in prison as much as elsewhere. In 1998, the Prison Service reported 218 incidents of racist violence and abuse in prison, and that from a prison population of almost 20,000 ethnic minority people. A Home Office study of 501 inmates across eight prisons found that more than half the black inmates interviewed had been victimised by staff on the basis of race. What is wrong with our system when the victims of racist attacks in prison do not have the confidence to report them to those who will do something about them? The Bill will go a long way to creating that culture in which those matters are rightly reported.
That is the picture not only for adults. What is true for the young man or woman is also true for the young black child. The House knows that I have been a trustee of Childline for many years. Last year, it produced an excellent study of racism and bullying. We found that black children are far more likely to be bullied at school and far more likely to be bullied persistently. The 1999 National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children report entitled "Protecting Children From Racism and Racial Abuse" concluded:
Racism and racial bullying will be commonplace in the life of young people and ethnic minority children especially.

Mr. Rowe: Did the Childline inquiry establish the disturbing fact that bullying in Scottish schools is disproportionately against white English children? If so, can he comment on that, too?

Mr. Woodward: The comment to make on that is extremely simple: wherever bullying is found, it is a very bad thing. If the Conservative party had chosen to listen to the children's charities and talk to the professionals about section 28 and the reasons for its reforms before adopting its three-line Whip, it would have learned that homophobic bullying is a major problem in schools. If the hon. Gentleman wants to take an interest in bullying, I can only suggest that he contact some of those charities before casting his vote on the Local Government Bill.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Woodward: I will not, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have time to make his own speech.
This generation and this Parliament did not create most of the conditions and circumstances with which British society lives today, but they have the opportunity and responsibility to deal with them. Millions of people—


British people—with different-coloured skins all want to be part of that society and to share its opportunities. Britain is not a nation defined simply by its education system, its incomes, its geography or its borders. It is defined by its shared hopes and shared dreams and the principles and aspirations of all the people who live here and make up this country.
Multiculturalism does not have to be feared; we have to desire it. The question is not one of political mandates, but of doing what is decent and right. If we get that right, we can make one nation of two, but the enemies of that common purpose are not those who are black or even those who are white. They are prejudice, intolerance, fear and indifference. That is why we need the Bill. It may be small, but it has a huge moral question at its heart. We must ask whether it is right to continue to impose a lesser start in life on members of entire ethnic groups and to expect of one part of our country a degree of acceptance and resolution that we would never ask of someone who is white. Shall we be equals or shall we be divided?
Unlike the shadow Foreign Secretary, I think that British people know and care about what we are discussing today. They want an end to the violence and lawlessness. They do not think that discrimination is a good thing. They do not think that it should be tolerated. The vast majority of people in this country, white or black, want to live together harmoniously and with shared goals and hopes. They want justice, whether they be black or white, and the Bill is one more step towards that fairness, that justice and that equality.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Representation of the People Act 2000
Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (Amendment of Rules) Act 2000

Mr. Simon Hughes: I begin by observing that the Queen works quickly—at least today she has, because we only finished consideration of the Representation of the People Act 2000 in the early hours of this morning. I am glad to know that she has been on the job today early on.
The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) made a very good speech, as he did last year, from the Tory Benches, on sexual orientation equality issues. He is clearly committed to the equality agenda and I congratulate him on what he said. I share much of his view; indeed, my hon. Friends and I always have. I must tell him, however, that I have never thought it right for someone who was elected under one set of colours to adopt another set of colours without the authority of the electorate. I think that a Member who dissents from the view of his or her party—[Interruption.] I have never believed that Members should cross the Floor without obtaining the view of the electorate. It is entirely honourable for those who feel that their party has left

them, or they have left their party, to continue to sit as independents. [Interruption.] I am aware of many historical examples, but I am presenting my personal opinion clearly. I have never found it acceptable for Members to cross the Floor from any party to any party, and that includes my party. Whatever views a Member may hold, I think it is always right for that Member to ensure that the electorate also accept that he or she should be more at home in another party.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: Not for the moment.
As the hon. Member for Witney and others have said, the Bill is important. It is important because it touches on important issues mentioned by many speakers today. The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) gained considerable experience of dealing with these matters when he was a Home Office Minister: I thank him for that service, which he performed extremely well. By telling us, quietly but none the less horrifically, that he continues to receive hate mail regularly, the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) reminded us that we are a long way from a tolerant and accepting society.
The Home Secretary himself made clear how important the Bill was to him. I have no doubt about the Government's commitment, and indeed the Home Secretary's personal commitment, to equality issues. I am relieved that, in relation to issues on which I thought the Government were inadequate and weak at the outset, they have been persuaded, and have been honest enough to say they have been persuaded. That means that the Bill will eventually be much stronger than it was originally.
For my constituents, and for those of many of us who represent multiracial communities, these are day-to-day issues. As the hon. Member for Witney said, they matter hugely to such communities. Twenty-five per cent. of my constituents are black or Asian. It is not just that many experience discrimination, and find—this was referred to earlier—that they have a greater chance of being excluded from school or doing less well there, or of being arrested or detained by the police, or of going to prison, or of being out of work. Nearly every week, people come to my surgery and tell me that they are being racially harassed, simply because of the colour of their skin.
As was graphically represented in a Benetton advertisement a couple of years ago, people are not born with a sense of difference; it is taught and it is caught, and if that happens it is because we as a society are doing something wrong. If we are doing something wrong, we need to put it right quickly, because every harassed individual, every attacked individual and every wrongly imprisoned individual means that society is not doing its job entirely successfully.
Only the other week, we saw another example of that locally. Black youngsters on their way home, for no reason other than the fact that they were black, were assaulted by older white males. That is not acceptable in any United Kingdom constituency: all possible action must be taken to deal with it, by us and others.

Jackie Ballard: I know that my hon. Friend represents an urban constituency. Is he aware of a report published by the National Association of Citizens Advice


Bureaux a year or two ago about racism in the south-west, subtitled "Why don't they go back to Birmingham"? For many people living in rural areas, where there are far fewer black faces, the experience of racism and racial attack can be worse than in urban areas, where there may be a larger concentration. In fact, the view in rural areas is often, "There are very few black people here, so it is not a problem"—but it is often a bigger problem.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) had personal experience, of which the House is aware, of the invidious position in which members of small minority ethnic communities can find themselves in what are in any case small communities. I visit other constituencies that are much less multicultural than mine, and, when I spot just one or two black or Asian people going about their business, I reflect on how difficult life must often be for them and their families. Indeed, many people have testified to that.
We have had a Home Office-filled agenda this week. I do not know whether it is a record, but we have dealt with three Second Readings of major Home Office Bills in four days. On Monday we dealt with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which was necessary and, at least in significant parts, good. On Tuesday we dealt with the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill, which was unnecessary and entirely bad. The encouraging thing about today's Bill is that I can tell the Government that we consider it necessary and entirely good, although it does not go far enough. The Government have accepted that, and have undertaken to go further. The Bill will get better, and we welcome the Government's commitment to improve it.
This Bill deals with two issues that are central to the way in which we run our society and our state. One is an issue that we have debated several times this week: what are the rights of the citizen relative to those of the state? The other, which we have not debated this week, is the question of the rights of one individual relative to those of another. The Bill is both a liberty Bill and an equality Bill, which is why we should be particularly careful to support it enthusiastically and ensure that we get it right.
We have come a long way. As has been pointed out, the Race Relations Act 1976, which was ground-breaking legislation, has in many respects stood the test of time, but it is not before time that we now seek to amend it. The life of a generation probably elapses between the act of legislation and the effect of that legislation fully filtering through to the society on whose behalf laws such as this are passed. What we do this year will probably not be entirely effective for 10 or 20 years. We must remember that legislation is only the beginning: it simply provides a backstop, or a framework. Of itself, it is not enough. To their credit, the Government have also promoted the Human Rights Act 1998, which will be implemented this year and which will be another helpful weapon in the armoury.
As the Home Secretary graciously did, I pay tribute to Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who has been active in these matters since the 1970s, and who has contributed greatly to the winning of the argument for the Bill's extension and to persuading the Government of how much further we need to go. I also pay tribute to the Lawrence inquiry judge and to his assessors, who eventually produced a controversial but necessary statement—a statement that

came from, in a sense, an unexpected quarter. When he was appointed, there was some question about whether Sir William Macpherson would produce proposals that would be seen to take up the concerns of minority communities, but he did, and the way in which the Government have accepted and adopted those proposals is also welcome.
Finally, I pay tribute to the Commission for Racial Equality, which, over the years, has persisted in putting its case effectively. Its outgoing chairman, Sir Herman Ouseley, continued to do that regularly and effectively. We should be grateful to the CRE as a body—it has become more effective over the years—and for all the ways in which it has helped us all. I wish its new chair every success, and hope that he follows in the footsteps of his predecessors.
One of the controversial issues is the extent to which the Bill will make the police feel uncomfortable as they change their practice. There is much good practice in the police. The inquiry's view that the police were institutionally racist should not be taken by police officers as a criticism of each or any of them individually. The report is clear about that. It expressly says in its conclusions that one should not confuse racism of individuals with a finding of institutional racism of the police force as a whole:
we do not accept that it was universally the cause of the failure of this investigation, any more than we accept that a finding of institutional racism within the police service means that all police officers are racist … It is incumbent upon every institution to examine their policies and the outcome of their policies and practices to guard against disadvantaging any section of our communities.
The perception is that we needed the jolt that was provided by the inquiry to move institutions on. Two days ago, I was at the Local Government Association fire conference in Southampton. A recent report has been published about the fire service, which needs to move fundamentally if it is to be no longer a racist service, but an equal opportunities service. Many organisations need that change. We need it here. This institution needs to become less racist. We are not a representative Parliament, and our parties are not representative.
For 25 years, local government has had a duty to tackle racial discrimination and to promote race equality. That has still not been achieved. The Local Government Association's report just last year said:
Local government has a worse record than that of the economy as a whole for employing Black, Asian and other ethnic minority people.
25 per cent. of authorities do not have a written policy to provide services fairly to all sections of the community.
51 per cent. of local authorities do not monitor their workforce with respect to equal opportunities.
Only 10 per cent. of authorities that monitor their staff have workforces that reflect the local Black, Asian or other ethnic minority population.
Black, Asian and other ethnic minority people are under-represented in senior positions in the local government workforce.
Only 3 per cent. of councillors are Black, Asian or other ethnic minority people …
So even the part of government that has been working on the agenda for a quarter of a century has not yet achieved, or fully delivered. So much worse are we here, and so much more do we need to do. I welcome what the Home


Secretary said about the way in which he has addressed those issues in the Home Office. Each Department of Government and each public authority needs to ask itself those questions.
In that context, may I say how welcome it is that the CRE and Operation Black Vote piloted an initiative involving me and several colleagues in the House taking part in a work-shadowing scheme, in which young black or Asian people from other walks of life work with us, as part of trying to build a new generation of people and a more reflective, representative Britain? If the young person who is working with me, Imran Ahmed, a 21-year-old of Pakistani origin, is the same as all his colleagues on the scheme, they have the potential to show how hugely society will benefit from much greater participation by people such as them.
We have at last had the concession from the Government that they will support an amendment to the Bill, so that the Bill's provisions cover not only direct discrimination but indirect discrimination. From our point of view—Lord Lester made the point clearly in the other place—that was always necessary. The legislation could never have been adequate if it did not oblige public authorities to act in a way that was neither directly nor indirectly discriminatory.
I have a question about that. I find it difficult to understand how the Government could have been advised that the Bill complied with the European convention on human rights—it is still on the Bill—when it did not include indirect discrimination. I do not understand how the advice can have led them to that conclusion. I should be grateful if Ministers explained how they started off in that direction, even though they have now been persuaded otherwise.
Because they are important, I want to mention the two definitional things that hon. Members have wanted to make clear in the debate. Indirect discrimination is not the same as unwitting or unintentional discrimination. It is something that people do not necessarily think about at all, but that has the indirect consequence of being discriminatory—for example, the way in which people recruit, advertise or involve people in another activity.
Likewise, institutional racism is not necessarily intended racism. The ideas are not linked. We have to be careful to distinguish them. I hope that, just as the Government have changed their view on that, we will soon receive full-hearted support from the Conservative Benches on the matter, which the Conservative shadow Home Secretary today appeared to withhold. We need individual change and institutional change. Both are needed soon.
On one issue, we need to think beyond the Bill. It could be done in Committee, but, if not, it should be done elsewhere—and soon. I do not argue that there should be separate organisations that specifically concentrate on gender equality issues—the Equal Opportunities Commission has done that—and race equality issues, but there is still a case for something that brings those together and allows common views to be expressed.
My colleagues and I have argued for a long time that some form of overarching equal opportunities commission that respects the different competences would be a good thing. It would serve us well if we as a society did something about that.
Linked to that, we need to go back to the issue of having an independent Police Complaints Authority. We need to work out how the different adjudicating authorities can come together, so that we do not have the CRE exercising certain functions and the PCA exercising others. The point was made earlier and I support it. There is quite a big issue here about how we achieve effective, speedy and patently clear adjudication on issues of racial inequality, racial injustice and racial prejudice, and other discrimination.
As important as any legislation is the process of education. If we do not educate better against discrimination, we are not dealing with the cause of much of the prejudice and the discrimination in our society.
My hon. Friends and I will happily support each and every one of the four major changes that the Government indicate they want to make to the Bill. We have argued for the changes in the other place. I hope that it is not least as a result of our efforts and those of Lord Lester and Lord Dholakia that they have been included: the indirect discrimination provision; the provision to allow for positive action; the provision to ensure that the immigration service is included—that does not mean that people cannot discriminate on the basis of nationality, but it does mean that they cannot discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, or practise other unreasonable discrimination—and the statutory duty to promote equality.
There is a duty on all of us personally, as well as collectively, to promote equality. We will do it only if we think about it all the time. That is why, if police officers have to stop and think before they arrest or search someone: "Am I sure that I am doing it because of the crime and not because of the person and the person's characteristics?" we will make progress. If all of us—all public servants—work in a society where we always ensure that we and others are not acting because of our innate, unacceptable prejudice, we will make progress. The Bill is progress, but it is the beginning of the next chapter, not the end.

Mr. Marsha Singh: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. There have been some very good speeches, and I am sure that my speech will be entirely inadequate in comparison. I commend especially the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). After hearing it, I am happy to accept him as my hon. Friend.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that racism is pernicious and evil. Racism distorts the life chances of individuals and of whole communities. It can, and does, lead to minorities living in fear. Worse, it leads to physical assaults and to death, as we have witnessed only too often in the United Kingdom.
Racism also, however, damages its perpetrators, locking them into a cage of hatred and twisted bitterness. However, that cage also locks them out—out of our multicultural society and world, with the opportunities on offer—by distorting their personalities and limiting their humanity. Racism, essentially, is a failure of both intelligence and humanity.
Racism is also a disaster for society. It actively promotes social disharmony. Racism, by freezing the opportunity available to some members of society, limits the possibilities of social development and progress.
The Race Relations Act 1976 was a giant step forward in protecting the rights of Britain's minorities, and in promoting the opportunities open to them. Britain can be proud of that Act and of the protection that it afforded minorities. Such protection does not exist for minorities elsewhere in Europe or in very many other parts of the world.
The 1976 Act itself was a consequence of something that is too easily dismissed—Britain's innate, genuine tolerance. The action that we took in 1976, before 1976 and after 1976—and the action that we shall take today—could succeed only by building on a spirit of good will and tolerance. Such tolerance exists in my city of Bradford, where people are daily, weekly, monthly and yearly making efforts to promote good race relations.
I also have every confidence in my police force, and in its efforts to build good race relations and to tackle racism. It would be a mistake if this debate were to go down the road—which it has not done so far—of attacking police. Police work in the most difficult circumstances and in the most awful situations. Quite often, the errors that they make in race relations occur as a consequence not of racism, but of a lack of cultural awareness and sensitivity. It is essential that, within any race relations programme, cultural sensitivity programmes should be made available to all our public servants, including police.
Playing the race card—shouting "racist" when it is not appropriate to do so—to avoid the consequences of one's own crimes or actions is as bad as institutional racism, direct racism or indirect racism. I hope that people who play the card will realise that, in doing so, they are doing a disservice to themselves and to their communities. We have all heard of the shepherd who cried wolf too often. False alarms detract from the progress on race relations that we are making generally.
I am not saying that we have tackled the problem of racism. Although we have made great progress, we have not tackled the problem. Racism is very real, it is a very real threat, and we have constantly to be vigilant in dealing with it. That is why I have always supported calls by the Commission for Racial Equality and other bodies for strengthening the 1976 Act, and why I wholeheartedly welcome the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill.
Race relations legislation is not about policing thoughts, but about changing behaviour. It is about putting down in statute the markers distinguishing between acceptable and entirely unacceptable behaviour. I welcome the Home Secretary's decision to heed the calls to include indirect discrimination within the Bill's ambit.
The Bill advances race relations legislation in several important spheres. It extends the provisions of the 1976 Act to cover a wide range of public authorities, including police, that currently are not covered by those provisions. The Bill also makes chief police officers vicariously liable for the acts of discrimination committed by their officers. It also imposes an enforceable, positive duty on public bodies to promote racial equality. That is an exremely important step.
I have a few questions to ask the Minister. Although some of the questions have already been asked by hon. Members, I should like to reinforce the points that they make. How do the Government plan to include indirect discrimination in the Bill? That issue has not been

addressed. Although we have been told that an amendment to that effect will be tabled, we have not been told what it will provide.
What is the definition of public authorities? Which public authorities will be covered by the Bill? Although some authorities have been included in the schedule, what mechanism will be used to add other authorities to the schedule or to another list? Have the Government excluded the immigration and nationality directorate from the Bill's ambit?
Have Ministers given any thought to the important issue—which does not fall within the scope of this legislation—of religious discrimination, which is a growing concern among my constituents, especially my Muslim constituents, who perceive discrimination directed at them not because of their colour, but because of their religion?

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman—who, like me, is a member of the Home Affairs Committee—for giving way. Could he be more specific in describing the discrimination that he says that Muslims are suffering? I should be very interested to hear what he has to say about it.

Mr. Singh: Indeed I can. Currently, it is perfectly legal for an employer to put up a sign outside his factory gate or shop saying, "Muslims need not apply". It would be very difficult to do anything about that under the provisions of the 1976 Act. Muslims in my constituency believe that there is discrimination against them because of their religious identity. That perception comes from stories in the media demonstrating growing Islamophobia within society.

Mr. Howarth: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his constituents should not perceive an anti-Muslim phobia in this country? The United Kingdom has, for example, a growing number of mosques. During the Gulf war, when I was doing television interviews, I had to go past the Saddam Hussein mosque, in Birmingham. No Muslim thought to cover up the mosque's "Saddam Hussein" sign, which was pretty offensive to those of us who felt that our troops were engaged in a fight against Saddam Hussein. I believe that there has been much tolerance towards Muslims in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Singh: There has been a lot of tolerance towards all minorities in this country for a long time, along with the intolerance of people with extreme racist views. One problem with religious discrimination is that, while people of the Jewish and Sikh faiths are protected by the 1976 Act because they are regarded as ethnic groups, Muslims, who are not an ethnic group because Islam is a universal religion, are not protected. Muslims want to know why they are not protected.

Dr. Ashok Kumar: My hon. Friend is talking about Islamophobia. The study conducted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation demonstrated clearly for the first time with ample evidence that Islamophobia was emerging. More work needs to be done on that. Does my hon. Friend recall that study?

Mr. Singh: I do recall that study now that my hon. Friend has reminded me of it. I recommend it to the


hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), my colleague on the Home Affairs Committee, because it will probably illuminate him far more than I can on the subject.

Sir Peter Lloyd: I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments about notices in his constituency saying "No Muslims need apply". As such a notice would have a disproportionate effect on a particular ethnic group, I would have thought it quite likely that it would be possible to prosecute such employers. Has the hon. Gentleman thought of doing so? Has he advised those affected to seek such a prosecution?

Mr. Singh: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. The notice was in a neighbouring town, not in my constituency. What he suggests is feasible, but the fact remains that religion is not included in the 1976 Act, and yet two religious groups—Jews and Sikhs—are covered by virtue of their ethnic origin.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): My hon. Friend was talking about research on Islamophobia. He will be aware that the Government have commissioned Derby university to undertake some research on religious discrimination. An interim report has been published and we hope to publish a report later in the year.

Mr. Singh: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for those remarks.
The Bill is another giant step forward for race equality in this country. Discrimination exists and we have to tackle it. The Bill will tackle it by including public authorities. Some contributions to the debate about racism and ethnic minorities assume that all members of ethnic minorities are victims and all suffer from the same problems. That is not true. Many ethnic minority groups are succeeding. That is a tribute to our society. We need to look more specifically at the problems that particular ethnic minority groups face. We do nobody a service by lumping everybody together and asserting that ethnic minorities are all poor and disadvantaged. Many have moved forward in our society and are making huge contributions in industry, the economy, art, literature, television and, dare I say in the case of one or two of us, in politics.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been the subject of much criticism in recent weeks, not least concerning the case of General Pinocchio. However, he and his team deserve great credit for their real achievements on race equality. That needs to be put on record. That is not a sycophantic comment. Anyone who knows me well knows that I may be many things, some good and some bad, but I am not a sycophant. There have been some positive speeches from Conservative Members and I hate to bring a partisan tone to the debate, but I have to say that, while the Tories have reverted to extremist type by playing the race card over asylum and immigration once again, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has quietly and professionally made progress. He and his team abolished the discriminatory primary purpose rule that the Tories brought in and have threatened to bring in again.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is my hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has suggested that the Conservatives—were they ever to be re-elected—might consider reintroducing the primary purpose rule?

Mr. Singh: I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. I heard about that today in the Chamber in a contribution by another hon. Friend. The world outside should know that and I hope that the message goes out from the Chamber. If the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on the Conservative Front Bench is willing to intervene and say that the story is not true, I should be happy to accept his word.

Mr. David Lidington: To satisfy the eager anticipation of several Labour Members, I should make it clear that we shall look at a number of options on what to do about the problem of bogus marriages. I think that Ministers accept that there is a problem, just as we do. However, we have not committed ourselves to any particular policy or course of action that we might include in a future manifesto.

Mr. Singh: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. My constituents will read his remarks with care. They will worry that measures against bogus marriages may mean that genuine marriages will not be accepted if the Conservatives come to power again and that there is a real possibility of the primary purpose rule being reintroduced. It was discriminatory from the outset, as was proved in practice. It divided families—man from wife and mothers or fathers from children—for years.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being generous in giving way to me again. I remind him that the option of a new primary purpose rule, which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) wants to keep open, was described by the Conservative candidate for mayor of London as "enormously offensive", "disgusting" and "immoral". The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) seems to want to keep open the option of returning to such a policy.

Mr. Singh: In that case, I am not surprised that the Conservative candidate for mayor of London is rapidly distancing himself from his party. Perhaps he will shortly announce that he is standing as an independent.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has brought back the right of appeal on visitor's visas—a right that the Tories took away. He has introduced a criminal offence of racially aggravated violence, while the Tories turned a blind eye to racial harassment, racial assaults and racial killings on the streets of Britain. My right hon. Friend launched the Lawrence inquiry, which the Tories refused to do, because they did not care about the deaths of young black people on the streets of Britain.
With this Bill, the Home Secretary has launched a crusade against racism in public life, while the Tories pander to prejudice on the basis of emotions. The Home Secretary's and the Government's record on racism is one to be proud of. Labour's vision of a modern and fair Britain in which racism and discrimination have no part is one that I am happy to share and be proud of.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) felt obliged to conclude with a rather partisan coda that spoiled the effect of his speech. Until a few moments before he sat down, I thought that I would be able to say that I agreed with almost every word that he had said. So I shall draw a veil over what I thought was a rather ill-judged closing passage and focus on the larger part of his speech with which I agreed, in particular the proposition that he advanced that, not just on both sides of the House, but more importantly in all our constituencies, there is a broad-based commitment to openness, decency and the desire for a successful multi-racial society. He was right to say that. He was also right to say that it is our obligation to ensure that that commitment by our constituents is converted into law to provide an administrative framework that delivers the objective that the overwhelming majority of them share.
Anyone who knows anything about the political history of Britain over the past 30 years will recognise that, despite the decency to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred, race relations is a sensitive subject. Because of that, I have always thought that it should be approached against the background of a clear statement of the principles on which we seek to construct our policy.
This afternoon, hon. Members on both sides of the House have sought to examine the pragmatic consequences of policy. Of course, as practical people we must do that, but if a policy is to be successful it must be firmly rooted in principle. I want to focus my remarks on the two principles that are firmly embedded in the Bill and that I wholly endorse. Because I endorse them, I am pleased to welcome the Bill.
The first principle should, in the modern world, be wholly unarguable. Indeed, both principles should be wholly unarguable, but the first should never have been controversial. It is that any law that imposes standards of behaviour on private citizens ought to apply equally to public authorities. If we stand for nothing else, surely to goodness we stand for the principle of freedom under law, and if that phrase means anything, it means that the law must apply to every section of the community and should not provide a let-out for the public sector from principles that legislators seek to apply to the private sector.
I regard that principle as the bedrock of good law. It is of course the polar opposite to another principle that we have endorsed in this Chamber in large parts in the past century—the principle of Crown immunity, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) accurately described as the principle that public officials do not need to be constrained by law because they are motivated by such high principles. He described that principle in language so flowery that it reduced it to the absurdity that it is. It is clearly wholly wrong.
Let me detain the House for a moment with an example that is way outside race relations, but illustrates the absurdity of Crown immunity in practice. When I was a health Minister, I discovered that the national health service, the nation's principal public health institution, was exempt from waste disposal regulations. As a result, in the disposal of clinical waste, the NHS was one of the major polluters of the environment in Britain. The law on waste disposal did not apply to the NHS as it was part of the public sector and therefore could claim Crown

immunity. Exactly the same principle lay behind the Race Relations Act 1976, which sought to apply a framework of law to private citizens and corporations, but to exempt the public sector. The law is flawed in practice.
The second objection to Crown immunity is that it is not just wrong in practice and in the practical consequences that flow from it, but that it is fundamentally wrong in principle. Indeed, if the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) were here, the debate might inspire him to make the speech that many of us have heard him make about the consequences of the English revolution and the importance of the King and the Government working within a framework of law. We ought to be committed to the principle that the public sector and the private sector should live by the same legal framework, and to the extent that the Bill gives effect to that important principle, it is long overdue and most welcome.
I said that two principles lay behind the Bill. The first is the abolition of Crown immunity and the application to the public sector of the principles of law that have applied to the private sector for a generation.
The second principle used to be somewhat more controversial, at least in the tabloid press. I am pleased to say that it is now much less controversial, but in my view it was right all along. I am a strong supporter of the principle that the law should prevent discrimination on grounds of race, colour or creed. It is important to be clear about what we say on that subject.
It is sometimes said that the framework of race relations legislation is a manifestation of the nanny state. I cannot count the number of times that I have been told that we cannot change human nature. Of course that is true, but legislators can define acceptable standards of behaviour. I do not believe that it is acceptable behaviour in a civilised society to discriminate between one citizen and another on the ground that one citizen is Jewish and another is not, one citizen is Muslim and another is not or one citizen is Afro-Caribbean and another is not. I believe that action, not motivation, is the key. The hon. Member for Bradford, West was absolutely right about that. Queen Elizabeth I said:
We do not seek a window on men's souls.
It is not the motivation that matters, but the action, and race relations legislation seeks to confine the action within acceptable standards of public behaviour.
There should no longer be any doubt about the commitment of this House to a framework of law that outlaws discrimination between one citizen and another on grounds of race, religion or ethnicity.
Those are the two principles on which race relations should be built and they are embedded in the Bill. They are the reasons why I am strongly in favour of it, but I wish now to examine some of its detail, because one or two of its aspects and the history of its presentation leave me slightly uneasy. If we start from the point of view of principle, as I have sought to do, it is odd how cautious some of its text has turned out to be.
The proposed section 19B started off, as several hon. Members have pointed out, by outlawing direct discrimination in the public sector but would have continued to allow indirect discrimination. I am delighted that the Government have changed their mind, but I do not think that it is churlish to say that—given the


principles that I have just expounded—there should never have been any doubt about it. It should have been axiomatic from the beginning.
The same caution that led the Government to exclude indirect discrimination from the Bill lies behind the trouble that the Home Secretary got into when he was called upon to define the public authorities to which the provisions of the Bill will apply. The Bill, as drafted, does not impose duties on public authorities. It merely requires them to obey the law that, as private citizens, all the rest of us have had to obey since 1976. I can understand that the Government would need a schedule containing a definition of public authorities if the Bill imposed a new duty on public authorities that will not apply to private individuals, but the Bill will simply extend the ban on discrimination that currently applies in the private sector to the public sector. However, the Government then seek to say that the principle applies only to the public authorities listed in new schedule Al. That prompts the obvious question—which public authorities are not included in that schedule and why? To put that point more emotively, which public authority believes that its capacity to deliver its objectives demands that it maintains the freedom to discriminate against the Jews? That is the effect of the Bill as it applies to any public authority that is not in the schedule.
The principle that the House should demand be applied is that anybody who wishes to be free to discriminate on grounds of ethnicity or race should have to justify that highly questionable proposition. One of the groups that seeks an exemption from the overall provisions of the Bill is Ministers in the exercise of their immigration and nationality law responsibilities. That is definitely a questionable proposition. I accept, of course, that those who deal with immigration law have to be able to discriminate on grounds of nationality, but it is difficult to understand in what circumstances they might wish to discriminate between one individual and another on the ground of ethnic origin.
The Home Secretary referred to the example of refugees from Kosovo. Surely the whole point about refugees from Kosovo is that it is their Government who discriminate on grounds of ethnicity: our immigration law should consider the risk that an individual would face outside this country. That is what we should use as the basis for discrimination, not ethnicity or racial background. When will a Minister need to be able to distinguish one application from another on grounds of ethnic or national origin? Why are Ministers preserving for themselves an exemption from the provisions of the Bill?
The new section 19D that will be written into the Race Relations Act 1976 states that the prosecution authorities should be free to decide not to prosecute on the grounds of racial discrimination. The justification for that offered in the explanatory notes is:
This exemption will prevent it being possible for a claimant to use the Act to discover the reasons for a decision not to prosecute, preserving the role of the criminal courts as the sole forum for determining guilt.
I understand the desirability of that, but—set against the principles that I outlined—it is a large derogation of principle to say that the race relations legislation should not apply to a prosecutor making a decision not to prosecute a citizen. That will put the prosecutor outside this key framework of law.
The questions that arise from the Bill for me are not connected with its principles, because every hon. Member should embrace them. My question to Ministers is why they have felt the need to be so cautious and to maintain for themselves potentially large derogations from those important issues of principle. I hope that when the Minister winds up or in Committee, he will be able to respond to those concerns and to demonstrate that the Government share—as I believe they do—a commitment to ensure that our race relations legislation is built on the two key principles that I started with. First, the same law must apply to the public and private sector, and secondly, for both public and private sector, discrimination on grounds of race or ethnicity is no longer—and never has been—acceptable behaviour.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I especially welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) about the strength, vitality and importance of the ethnic minority communities in this country. People sometimes express surprise about the relative lack of ethnic minority communities in my constituency, but I would dispute that. People fail to understand the nature of English history if they do not recognise the great strengths that the waves of immigration have brought to the United Kingdom.
I also wish to contribute to the debate because in recent years, to my deep regret, the city of Lancaster has very publicly become associated with an appalling example of racist abuse and harassment. I know all about that problem and wish to ensure that we can move on to a positive future.
This is an excellent Bill and it should be welcomed wholeheartedly by every hon. Member. My speech will be the shortest this afternoon, because I do not want to say much about the Bill, except to welcome the restatement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of his intention to introduce an amendment to enshrine the principle that public bodies should have a positive duty to promote equality. That is a profoundly important proposal. If it is properly enforced, it should cement the profound and irreversible change that our society needs if it is to enjoy and gain from the welcome fact that we are a multicultural and multi-racial society.
I hope that the consultation on how the principle will be developed will give public bodies a positive power to intervene in race relations issues, and the certainty that they will be called to account if they do not use the powers properly.
I have held elected office for the past 13 years. I have dealt with issues, as a ward councillor, concerning people who remain my neighbours and who are my constituents and who became the victims of racial abuse and intolerance. In that situation, public bodies were almost powerless to intervene. I do not intend to rake over the coals of all that, because the new positive duty can help us move for the future and can help Lancaster city council build upon the progress. The test of the new power for public bodies will be whether Lancaster city council and other public bodies in the city are able to build on the progress and resolve the problems.
The most striking aspect of the Macpherson report was the clear definition that a racist incident is any incident perceived to be racist by the victim or by any


other person. We must understand and appreciate how significant that is. We need to understand how racism is perceived by people on the receiving end. As a councillor, I worked with many people who were embroiled in a terrible dispute. I tried to understand why people held some of their attitudes, and tried to make them appreciate the significance of a thoughtless remark or careless gesture to the person on the receiving end.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I have been agreeing with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I am worried by the element of subjectivity that he has introduced with his point about how an incident is perceived. I am Jewish and, from time to time, people involve me in incidents that I do not like. It would not do the Jewish community any good at all if I always assumed that those people were motivated by anti-semitism. I ask the hon. Gentleman to think again about perception by the victim.

Mr. Dawson: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, as he helps me to take my argument further. Recently in Lancaster, a great friend and colleague of mine—the leader of the city council—became the victim of campaign of abuse and vilification. He is Jewish, and he takes his religion seriously. All of us in politics are there to be shot at and we must take the flak that follows unpopular decisions. However, that campaign was so concerted that the impact it had on that individual was probably disproportionate to the impact that it would have had on someone from a different racial background. I do not suggest in any way that the campaign was motivated by anti-semitism or racism, but I am trying to say that we should be more aware of the possible impact of our words.
If for thousands of years—and in the recent past especially—the history of one's race has been one of scapegoating and victimisation, someone's hurtful words might have an impact that was never intended by that person.

Dr. Kumar: Surely we should look at the victim's feelings about how he or she has been treated. The same situation used to apply in terms of domestic violence until the definition was changed. If a victim feels that an attack was racist or anti-semitic, we should look at their definition, and at whether the incidents are systematic and there is ample evidence. That would answer the point made by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).

Mr. Dawson: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is about appreciating the views of victims and understanding the impact of racist actions and abuse and thoughtless action.
I hope that the new power will be dynamic and creative and will encourage and enable councils such as my own to invest in communities and deal with the issues of racial equality, and with difficult situations. I hope that public authorities will support the proposal by holding events to celebrate different races and cultures. We must give local authorities a clear role in disseminating information and bringing communities together. That will help to build coalitions. So much of my work as a councillor was in trying to build coalitions of like-minded people, and to bring people together in understanding, tolerance and harmony. That is an essential part of what we need to do.
I hope that the new duty on public authorities can spread the message to all parts of the country—not just places such as Bermondsey, where 25 per cent. of the community comes from ethnic minorities. I hope that the message spreads to those communities that are under the illusion that they do not need to get involved in race relations issues because they have no significant ethnic minority communities. We must spread the message that one of the great advantages of this country is the fact that ours is a multi-racial and multicultural society.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will accept that my Ulster Unionist party colleagues and other hon. Members from Northern Ireland are unable to attend this debate because the Northern Ireland Grand Committee is sitting elsewhere in the building to consider the Northern Ireland appropriation order. I trust that the House will understand if I leave once I have delivered my brief comments. However, I hope to return before the debate is wound up.
We welcome the Home Secretary's decision to include indirect discrimination in the race relations legislation. The Commission for Racial Equality has conducted three reviews of the Race Relations Act 1976 and, in light of the Macpherson report and the on-going debate in Parliament, it seems clear that change, via the legislation, is long overdue.
Given the findings of the Macpherson report, and the serious instances of institutional racial discrimination that it uncovered, it is paramount for the protection of ethnic minorities that the public sector become as accountable for its policies and practices as the private sector. To exclude areas of the public sector from the legislation—such as the police force, the Prison Service or the immigration service—and from the requirement to combat and pull out the roots of institutionalised racism would render the Bill fruitless.
At a time when the United Kingdom has never been more ethnically cosmopolitan, such an omission would serve only to alienate further those ethnic communities who often feel themselves pushed toward the periphery of society by institutionalised racism. Public bodies must be obliged to deal with this institutionalised problem. Ministers, their Departments and other statutory bodies must be held to account for both direct and indirect discrimination in their sectors. That will enable all communities to feel that they truly have equal opportunities, rights and respect, regardless of their race or religion, and to see structural prejudice and injustice as things of the past.
However, the Bill needs to define clearly not only what indirect discrimination means, and to whom it applies, but which groups are an ethnic minority or a religious minority. The present legislation falls short on such details. It leaves the United Kingdom's 1 million Muslims in limbo, because they are not a collective ethnic or national group and so are unprotected from unfair indirect discrimination. Religious minorities, like ethnic communities, must be protected from structural prejudice—as they are in Northern Ireland.
Clause 1(19)(c) of the Bill states:
Section 19B does not make it unlawful for a relevant person to discriminate against another person on grounds of nationality or ethnic or national origin in carrying out immigration and nationality functions.


For example, that enables immigration officers to rule in respect of individuals on grounds of ethno-national origin as well as nationality, as long as they are acting within the immigration or nationality laws, or the confines of ministerial orders. That leaves the door wide open for indirect and direct discrimination against ethnic communities, and against refugees who may be seeking humanitarian aid in this country.
The Commission for Racial Equality and the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities argue that that omission in the legislation leaves open the possibility of unchecked discrimination, by immigration officials, on the grounds of nationality or ethnic origin. The Ulster Unionist party endorses the CRE's proposal that the clause should be amended and that national, ethnic or religious origin should be considered only in cases of humanitarian concern.
The recent hijacking crisis at Stansted airport highlights the problem. It has emerged in the press that many of the Afghan passengers, who had just been held hostage for days on end, perceived that they were treated with contempt by immigration officials, who encouraged them not to seek asylum in Britain. Before being sent back to Afghanistan, many of those held hostage complained to their translators of intimidation and coercion by immigration officials keen to remove them from British soil. However, the correct balance must be found: the United Kingdom must not be seen by economic migrants as an easy opportunity for illegal entry.
Furthermore, clause 1(19)(d) excludes from challenge as unlawful discrimination acts leading up to a decision not to institute criminal proceedings against suspected criminals. In other words, acts taking place between the police response to a suspected crime and the decision not to prosecute are excluded. The CRE has rightly pointed out that the provision inhibits the ability of individuals to appeal against direct or indirect discrimination by the police or Crown Prosecution Service after they have been arrested.
That brings us to address the growing need for a statutory duty to promote racial equality, as we have had in Northern Ireland since the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The significance of a positive legal duty is that it will oblige public authorities to act to prevent discrimination before it happens. That is much better than using the law for redress, as it will pre-empt discrimination and nip it in the bud, while at the same time saving huge sums of taxpayers' money.
In Northern Ireland, a number of racial discrimination cases are pending, whereas before the 1998 Act there were none. We hope to see the number fall in coming years as the statutory order takes effect and institutionalises equality of opportunity across Northern Ireland's communities.
We in Northern Ireland have welcomed all those who have chosen to settle with us and who have enriched our society. Many nationalities are represented—for example, Chinese, Pakistani and Indian—as are people from the Irish traveller communities. Together, they constitute about 1.5 per cent. of the total population.
Although these communities are small by comparison with ethnic minorities in other parts of the United Kingdom, the problems that they encounter are the same,

and their struggle against direct and indirect discrimination in this country is just as difficult. The Ulster Unionist party fully supports and endorses their appeals for such structural discrimination to be firmly dealt with in this Bill.
Northern Ireland's ethnic communities are represented by bodies such as the Chinese Welfare Association and the Indian Community Association. The leaders of those bodies, and NICEM executive director Mr. Patric Yu, have described the difficulties of indirect discrimination that ethnic minorities face in many public sector areas, especially with regard to immigration control and employment opportunities.
However, we are aware of the Home Secretary's fears that the Bill will prevent the police from doing their job properly and that they will be hampered in tackling crime in areas where there are large ethnic minorities. We are well aware of the difficult and delicate work that the police have to undertake, and the problems that that might provoke in police stop-and-search operations, for example. We, however, believe that once institutional racism is eradicated from private and public bodies, people from ethnic minorities will feel more comfortable joining public services such as the police, and will respond positively to any such structural change.
As for the argument that the Bill will introduce an atmosphere of racial tension that does not already exist, we believe that, on the contrary, it will simply deal with the existing problem. The ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland have no means of redress against claims of racism. The bodies that are facing claims from individuals within ethnic minority communities in Northern Ireland are having to reassess their policies and attitudes from the top down. The Home Secretary should learn from this example, and bring the legislation up to date.
Furthermore, with regard to the Government's concern that fresh new policies face delay and disruption from challenges of indirect discrimination, we believe that the solution is for the Departments to get it right first time. Institutionalised anti-discrimination should become a thing of the future, as it is in Northern Ireland, and institutionalised racism a thing of the past.

Jean Corston: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. I welcome the fact that the Government have the opportunity, after all those wasted years since the late-1970s, to widen the scope of the race relations legislation.
It seems extraordinary that in 1976 Parliament thought that it was not necessary to extend the scope of the Race Relations Act 1976 to public bodies. In a way, that was understandable, if we consider the context in which racism existed at that time. It was very well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), who said that there were many occasions on which he would go into a pub and be refused service. He would be asked to leave and subjected to the most appalling abusive language, simply because of the colour of his skin.
At that time, it was not unusual for boarding houses to have in their window signs saying, "No blacks, Irish or dogs". I suppose that it is hardly surprising that the scope of the legislation did not go quite as far as we would have liked. The problem was so pervasive, and incited people to hatred.
My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) referred in his thoughtful speech to the Tory party's indifference to this issue when it was in Government from 1979 to 1997. When Norman Tebbit was a Minister, he came to the House and said that he would present the report of the Commission for Racial Equality to Parliament in the way a head waiter would serve a bottle of coca-cola. That probably says it all.
Furthermore, I find it extraordinary that the present Conservative party has had more to say about General Pinochet than about Stephen Lawrence.

Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend mentioned the indifference of the Conservative party. I listened with care to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) and I agreed with his point about discrimination on grounds of ethnicity as well as nationality in immigration cases. However, does my hon. Friend recall that the previous Government, whom the hon. Gentleman supported, introduced a provision whereby British women were separated into two classes? Those who were born here could have their husbands join them here, while those who were not born here could not.

Jean Corston: I do indeed recall that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing it to my attention. Should my daughter, who was born in east Africa, have decided to marry someone from another country, she could well have fallen foul of that provision.
The atmosphere of that time—the advertisements that appeared in windows and on pub doors, the way in which jobs were advertised by word of mouth—shows that direct discrimination can be quite easily categorised and dealt with, although it takes a very long time to achieve success.
The Labour Government of the time took careful note of the United States legislation on discrimination and decided to import into their sex discrimination and race relations legislation the notion of indirect discrimination. That of course covers an organisation or person who applies a condition that is objectively non-discriminatory, but is discriminatory in effect, as in a sign saying, "No blacks, no Irish, no dogs".
Let me give an example, although it has nothing to do with race. When I was a child, it was not possible to be a police officer unless one was 5 foot 6 inches tall. That excluded many women. I do not say that the police necessarily intended to exclude women; it had probably crossed no one's mind that women would ever want to join in large numbers. That requirement has gone, because the police have recognised that it was indirectly discriminatory.
The impetus behind the Bill is the Macpherson report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, and the shabby, shameful and inadequate way with which it was dealt. Opposition Members and spokespeople clearly find the idea of institutionalised racism difficult. I do not allege that any Conservative Member of Parliament is sexist, or that any one of them would say or think it was inappropriate for women representatives to sit on the Conservative Benches. However, the effect of the way in which the Conservative party works is that few women can reach the House as Conservative Members. That is institutionalised sexism.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Lady must understand that the selection of Conservative candidates is entirely in

the hands of the party. We do not have the kind of apparatchik arrangements of the Labour party. Often, selection committees are made up largely of ladies. If they choose men rather than ladies as their candidates—and a lot of excellent ladies are coming forward—that is their choice. One hopes that the hon. Lady understands that we allow choice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman are taking us a long way from race relations.

Jean Corston: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) makes my point for me. The Labour party had to deal at local level with the way in which party members selected men as prospective Members of Parliament.
I am pleased by one of the Bill's most important provisions—the positive duty to promote equality. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for that. Contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), the impetus behind that provision was not provided only by a few Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords. I chair the parliamentary Labour party's civil liberties group, which the Home Secretary told about the Bill last autumn, saying that it would include direct discrimination, of course, and that it might include indirect discrimination. He added, though, that there were limits to that approach, and that the Bill might also have to include a positive duty to promote equality. The idea came from the Home Secretary himself, in conversations with many people as the Bill was prepared.
Existing race relations legislation operates on the provision of goods and services and in employment. As a lawyer who practised in discrimination cases, I can say that the effect of the law and its ambit are almost certainly confined to employment—how people are treated at work. If we had had just direct and indirect discrimination, and left it at that, what on earth would it have done for someone like Mrs. Lawrence? She was not employed by the Metropolitan police; she had no direct employment relationship with the force at all. Suppose she had tried, under the provisions of the Race Relations Act, or even of this Bill in the absence of the positive duty, to go to a public body such as the Commission for Racial Equality and say, "Well, the police were very nice to my neighbour when her cat was stuck in the tree, but they did not treat me very well when my son was murdered." She would not have got very far, because there was no relationship between her and the Metropolitan police, either in relation to the provision of goods and services or in relation to employment.
That is why a positive duty to promote equality is so important—not only for the police but for all public bodies. The job of such bodies is to deal with members of the public; they must clearly be seen to apply equality provisions.
Racism and the failure to promote racial equality go far beyond the ambit of the police. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney referred to the prison service. In 1996, my hon. Friend the Paymaster General and I visited Dartmoor prison to speak to black constituents who had alleged that they were not being treated well. I also wanted to speak to staff about the death in custody of my constituent Dennis Stevens.


On the wall of Dartmoor prison was a finely worded Home Office statement about anti-racism—such as may be found in many prisons. I asked the governor of the prison whose duty it was to enforce that statement. He said, "No one has ever asked me that, and I have never thought about it." With respect to the governor, I thought that it was his duty. The provisions of the Bill will ensure that public bodies take to heart the purpose of the duty to promote equality.
I point out to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that we need to know how that duty will operate; organisations need to establish appropriate mechanisms. Some are doing marvellous work. As I have mentioned in other debates, at the Trinity road police station in my constituency, the central police district has produced an excellent booklet entitled "Faces of Britain". It provides guidance for police officers on how they should treat members of different ethnic communities. It gives details of religious and social customs and beliefs. It sets out how officers should behave when they enter the homes of people from those communities. It is a splendid example of the way in which police officers can carry out their duties in a multicultural society so that everyone feels respected and equal.
Racism is still pervasive. My hon. Friend the Member for Southall said that he still receives hate mail—so do I. In Bristol, I have readily identified myself as someone who is utterly opposed to racism. It is not unusual for me to receive letters threatening me with nasty and permanent injury because of the stance I have taken.
Such letters are frequently unsigned. I could imagine the tone of voice in one letter that I received—it was clearly from a man. He said, "I fought in the second world war for this country. You keep speaking up for these other people." The King's African Rifles fought in the war, but they were not threatened as I was at the time as a child growing up in Hull. There were no racial boundaries when it came to the support of our cause in the second world war. Even if there had been, they would be irrelevant to the way in which we run modern society.
When I was small, one of my aunts went to see "South Pacific" while she was on honeymoon. She came back, full of that marvellous musical and especially keen on one song, which I learned. However, it was many years before I realised that "South Pacific" was about racism—at the time, it was just a musical with nice songs. The song that she liked so much is particularly instructive. I use it sometimes when talking to children about racism. It goes:


You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made
And people whose skin is a different shade.
You've got to be carefully taught.
You've got to be taught, before it's too late,
Before you are six, or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate.
You've got to be carefully taught.


That sums up pretty well the seeds of racism. If schools say, as they do routinely day after day, that children should be brought up to value and respect each other and to treat each other as equals and if we say that that should happen in Parliament and at work, we shall succeed only if everyone, whatever they do, recognises that they have an equal place.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I apologise to the House because I had to leave the Chamber earlier. I have two constituency engagements tonight, and I hope that the House will not regard my action as discourteous because no discourtesy is intended. I have been here since 1.15 pm, as the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) will know.
I was interested in what the Home Secretary said at the beginning of his speech. He ascribed good relations in this country since 1976 to the Race Relations Act 1976, which was passed not by a Labour Government, but more specifically by Parliament.

Jean Corston: What?

Mr. Howarth: The 1976 Act was passed by Parliament.
The Home Secretary was wrong to ascribe the success—I think that it has been a success—of the assimilation in this country of a large number of people from many countries around the world and different cultures to an Act of Parliament. We cannot change minds merely by changing the law. We cannot enforce a change of character or a change of view in that way.
The real tribute should be paid to the British people. They have been remarkable in the way that they have adjusted to the changes that have taken place rapidly in some parts of the country. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) will know very well what I mean, as will the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), who I am sorry is not present at the moment. At least 50 per cent. of the people in his constituency have origins in the Indian subcontinent. We should pay tribute to the people of Southall. They do not live in grand country houses at the end of long drives surrounded by parkland. They live in terraced houses, cheek by jowl with their neighbours and they—and not the landed gentry—have borne the brunt of the changes in society.
That brings me on to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), who made a particularly nauseating speech. I warn the House that I recognise that my speech will be rather different in tenor from those that have been made before. I do not apologise for that, because this is the place where we should be able to express our views. I recognise that it is a sensitive subject and I will endeavour to talk about it without inflaming emotions and passions in the House. However, I feel strongly about it, and just as strongly as other hon. Members, albeit in a slightly different way.
As I said, I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Witney was nauseating, in part because he was in charge of the Conservative party's whole campaigning operation. When did he advise Conservative Ministers that they should adopt a different policy on this issue? Where are the letters to suggest that he did? I suspect that they do not exist. He campaigned vigorously for the Conservative party, attacked this Government and then, overnight, switched sides and suddenly found that everything that the Conservatives had done was nauseating and anathema even though he had stood at the last election on the Conservative party's manifesto, much of which he had helped to draft. That smacks to me of gross hypocrisy.
The hon. Gentleman also referred frequently to decency in his speech, which, I thought betrayed his obsession with other areas of discrimination that are not the subject of the debate. I should have thought that he was obsessed with the promotion of indecency rather than that of decency.

Mr. Woodward: On a point of clarification, I had no hand in drafting the 1997 Conservative party election manifesto. I was involved in drafting the 1992 manifesto, and the then Conservative party chairman, Christopher Patten, and I shared with the then leader of the party an absolute abhorrence for any form of discrimination. As a matter of record, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), would very much want to distance himself from the kind of racist observations that I fear may be lurking behind the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman can throw insults at me, if he likes, because frankly they are just water off a duck's back. If he distanced himself from the 1997 manifesto, he had had five years in which he could have told Ministers to take what he thought of as a more robust attitude towards this issue. Suddenly he is sitting on the Government Benches and declaring himself hostile to everything that we stand for, but he kept remarkably silent until he had got his safe seat under his belt.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Don-ell), who explained why he could not stay, is no longer in his place. I oppose the Bill, but he made a point of principle when he said that there is a case for applying to the public sector that which is applied to the private sector, and a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends would agree that that is right in principle. However, my right hon. Friend gave me an opportunity to get myself off that hook by saying that he was nevertheless a pragmatic man, and I think that the Bill has something to do with pragmatism.
I am pleased to share my duties on the Home Affairs Committee with the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh). He is an excellent member of that Committee. We may have our differences, but we get on well together. He made the fair point that ethnic minorities in this country are doing very well, and he was keen to paint a balanced picture.
Since the hon. Gentleman spoke, I have discovered information from the Institute for Social and Economic Research at Exeter university which shows that the richest ethnic group is not native Brits—whites, if one likes—but Chinese. In terms of family wealth, native Britons come third after Chinese and Indians. The idea that ethnic minority communities are all in the lower wage bands and among the poorest is not borne out by the facts. I found also a statistic showing that black women earn on average more than white women, at £6.10 an hour to £5.19 an hour. I am told that the figures came from The Guardian, so Labour Members will know that they must be true.
I want to make three key points, and I do not want to detain the House, although I suspect that my contribution will be rather different from the others, so I hope that the House will be indulgent towards me. The Bill clearly has its origins in the Macpherson report, and as I said in the debate on the report a year ago, I regard it as intellectually shoddy and devoid of logic. I advanced that argument

because Sir William Macpherson's examination of the behaviour of each and every policeman responsible for the investigation of the awful, tragic murder of Stephen Lawrence revealed that none would have acted in a different way if the victim of that murder had been a white boy.
The only person who was singled out for any criticism was Detective Inspector Bullock, and that was because he was insensitive in referring to Stephen Lawrence and his friend Duwayne Brooks as "those two coloured lads". Poor Detective Inspector Bullock was unaware that to use the word "coloured" was a sign of insensitivity.
Having established that there was not a single case in which a single police man or police woman involved in the investigation of that murder had acted in a way that was racist, the committee under Sir William was driven to the conclusion that it would have to find something else, so it came up with the idea of institutional racism. That is a cop-out.
The report and the reaction to it have been severely damaging to police morale throughout the country, but especially among officers of the Metropolitan police force. Officers at all levels, from the top all the way down to those with whom some of us in the House come into contact, feel anger, bewilderment and a sense of having been beaten senseless by the criticism. They see their senior officers beating their breasts and saying "Mea culpa—it is all our fault and we must change", yet the report on which we are invited to base a change in the law could not find that a single police officer had acted dishonourably, save for the one example that I gave, which I do not consider a very serious example.

Fiona Mactaggart: I rise mainly to challenge the picture that the hon. Gentleman paints of the police response. Not long ago I attended a meeting of police of all ranks, members of the Thames Valley police in Slough. At the meeting they considered how they should respond to the Macpherson report, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they found it enhancing and empowering. In my constituency people of all races live together side by side, benefiting from that. The Macpherson report has given my local police force a route map showing how they can improve the quality of their service to the community, and they are pleased to have it.

Mr. Howarth: Of course the police would say that; they cannot say anything else. I at least have the privilege of representing a constituency and having a voice in the House, where I can articulate my views. If a common or garden copper expressed such views, he would be at serious risk of impairing his promotion prospects or possibly of being dismissed from the service. I shall deal in a moment with a man who has been dismissed from the service.
Reference has been made to stop and search. A year ago, in the aftermath of the report, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis told us that in Tottenham, stop and search fell by 48 per cent. and crime went up by 25 per cent.
I make no apology for quoting again the remarks that I quoted a year ago, made by the chairman of the Police Federation in Hampshire, who said:
Law-abiding ethnic communities have never caused problems for the police service, and indeed in Hampshire we have always enjoyed good relations with community leaders …
The main concern is in dealing with criminals who just happen to be black or Asian.
It is this element which I fear will attempt to capitalise on a well-intentioned report and try to use it to their advantage.
The phrase "You have only stopped me because I am black" in light of this report will understandably cause officers concern.
It will be exploited by that criminal element who attempt to hide their criminality behind their colour and attempt to thwart proactive policing by falsely alleging persecution on the basis of race rather than the truth.
I believe that police officers will be intimidated into being soft on stop and search. The Home Secretary's argument that the Bill will not make the individual police officer liable, but will make the top man vicariously liable does not meet my objections. If a police officer is referred to his superior officer as the subject of a complaint, and the chief police officer is vicariously liable, and if there is a growing list of complaints against a particular officer, of course he will be hauled up before his boss and have questions asked about him. [HON. MEMBERS: "So he should."] If so, the police officer will hold back from enforcing the law equally and impartially for fear of being accused of racism.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Home Secretary, referred to a report that was conducted by Dr. Marian Fitzgerald and commissioned by the Metropolitan police. It found that there was support for stop and search among black youths. I hope that the police are encouraged by that. It was striking that those who had been searched were no less inclined to say that the power was necessary. A black school boy commented that police
need to be able to do their job properly and as part of their job they have to stop and search people.
I take some encouragement from that. However, the police are nervous about enforcing the law. Far from improving matters, the Bill will make them worse.

Mr. Stephen Twigg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: I shall not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I do not intend any discourtesy, but I have already spoken for 14 minutes and I do not want to speak for too long.
Let us consider the case of PC Steven Hutt, which was the subject of a big article in The Daily Telegraph the Saturday before last. He was dismissed from the police service because, in a lapse of self-discipline, which he acknowledges, he said to a lad who had been arrested:
Sit down, you black bastard.
I quote it so that I am not accused of holding back from what the chap said. He knows that what he said was wrong; all hon. Members know that it was wrong. However, it seems wrong for a man of unblemished record and 19 years of service to be drummed out of the police service after he had been provoked by a youth.
The black mother of the youth believes that the sentence is disproportionate, as does the Police Federation. PC Hutt is being made a scapegoat for the Government's policy of trying to instil a rather crude form of political correctness in our police force. The article states:
Mr. Hutt has another champion. Jerry—he would not give a surname—is a bouncer at a Fulham pub. The two men became friendly through Mr. Hutt's anti-hooliganism duties.
I know all about racism. I have been stabbed for being black, and my personal belief is that everyone is racist to a certain extent," said Jerry, 34. "I am not saying that we are best buddies, but Steve and I are mates and he's a good guy. The country is screaming out for good policemen like him and a severe reprimand would have been enough. But we're talking politics.
The Government are playing politics with our police service, and a wholly disproportionate penalty has been given to a man who is widely acknowledged in both communities as an extremely successful policeman. We are considering political correctness gone mad. It is unforgivable to expect police officers to keep up with all the twists and turns of what language offends specific minorities.
I thank the hon. Member for Witney, who did me one service. He saved me from having to repeat some of the points that I made a year ago by quoting extensively from my speech. I hope that he will be pleased to know that I stand by every word, and shall continue to do so.
The Bill springs from an ideological desire for every institution to be a microcosm of society. It will damage the effectiveness of policing in this country. We expect our armed services to defend our country and not act as a crucible for social experimentation. The job of the police is not to act as a microcosm or reflection of society. It is the police service's job to enforce the law, and the job of our armed forces to fight for this country.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: Although the hon. Lady shares a birthday with me, and her father was a great man, I shall not give way to her.
My real fear is that the Bill will be a licence to anyone subjected to stop and search or any other intervention by the police to complain that they have been picked on—discriminated against—because of the colour of their skin. That will result in a tidal wave of complaints. The Home Secretary made it clear that he differentiates between such complaints and charges that the police may level against the individual concerned, but we shall nevertheless find our courts clogged up with a whole load of cases because complainants will not have much to lose. He is living in cloud cuckoo land if he is not prepared to acknowledge that. If the Bill becomes law, it will provide complainants with the means by which to accuse the police of having acted in a racist fashion.
The Bill will have an adverse effect on police morale and recruitment. I do not have the figures for Hendon, but I hope that the Minister will tell us how recruiting is going. I understand that not many recruits are coming forward—certainly not enough to meet the 1,000 shortfall in Metropolitan police numbers in London.
The Macpherson report made one interesting comment with which I agree. On page 316, it says:
We must at the same time warn some of those who are most vociferous in their condemnation of police officers that they should guard against their own racism. Not only during our Inquiry but in


general there is readiness without justification to assume and to say that because police officers are white they must be acting to the disadvantage of minority ethnic communities. Racist prejudice and stereotyping can work and be evident both ways.
Not one Labour Member acknowledged that to be the case.

Mr. Stephen Twigg: It is self-evident.

Mr. Howarth: It is not self-evident, because racism is always perceived to be one way. Before I refer to remarks made by Sir Herman Ouseley, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, I want to point out that, as well as a flood of claims, a serious cost to the Exchequer will arise from the proposals. The explanatory notes, which the Government have kindly provided, set out a whole series of costs on page 13. There
are likely to be additional costs to public authorities in relation to defending cases, settling cases, and paying damages if they lose cases.
We can say that again. They continue:
It is impossible to calculate what the overall financial effects of the Bill will be for those authorities
specified in the Bill. Furthermore, they say:
Additional public expenditure on the legal aid budget is also likely to arise from the new provision introduced in clause 1 …
In addition, there are likely to be significant costs to the legal aid budget arising from cases starting in the Immigration Appellate Authority …
Enormous costs will arise from the Bill—not only financial, but costs in terms of police morale, good race relations and effective policing.
I am not only against the Bill. Personally, I should like all the race relations legislation to be removed from the statute book. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] Hon. Members may say that, but I do not believe that it serves any useful effect, save to stir up trouble. By and large, I believe in a less regulated society. I certainly oppose the measure and I should have been happier if the race relations legislation—

Mr. Woodward: Now we know.

Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman does not know that he is obviously not very well informed.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman presents himself as a defender of the police, but I suspect that the vast majority of officers—good and decent people who work for us—would be appalled by his views on the race relations legislation. I want to place it on record that I think that they would dissociate themselves from his position.

Mr. Howarth: The Minister is frightfully excited about that. I dare say that some policemen disagree with me, but others may agree. We live in a free society and I am expressing a view. I cannot see anything outrageous in suggesting that we should remove a degree of regulation.
Let me finish by quoting the views of Sir Herman Ouseley, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality—an organisation that has itself been riven by internal feuding between the West Indian and Asian

communities. That organisation, which claims to be able to represent the interests of good race relations, was consumed by such problems for months, if not years.
According to Melanie Philips, in an article in The Sunday Times in December 1998, Sir Herman rejected the
validity of a common culture,
adding that black children needed to be taught black culture. Melanie Philips believes that this approach spelled
disaster for black children in Britain.
Without access to English culture, without command of its language, appreciation of its literature or a grasp of the history of its institutions, black children will be unable to play an equal part in a society which assumes such access as a given.
I agree with Melanie Philips. I feel that there is an element of racism in Sir Herman Ouseley's comment that black children need to be taught black culture. What about English children being taught English culture? If I said that in the House, I would be accused of being a racist.
I do not believe that the Bill is in the interests of good race relations. I shall not oppose it, because there will be no Division and I have to keep a constituency engagement, but I have made it clear that I do not support it, and if further opportunities arise I shall vote against it.

Mr. Stephen Twigg: It is a privilege to speak in the debate.
I am sure that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) had any doubts about the wisdom of crossing the Floor, listening to what we have all just heard has dispelled any that remained. I hope that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) will take the opportunity to repudiate the remarks of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), and to condemn them as being unacceptable in his party.
The hon. Gentleman painted a scary picture of the possible impact of the Bill, and spoke of cloud cuckoo land. I wanted to point out that he was condemning something that already applies in the private sector and has applied for the past 25 years, but—having not taken my intervention—he answered my point by saying that he did not think it should have applied during that time, and that people should not have such protection in any sector. I think that that view will be widely condemned by his constituents, and by people throughout the country.
Along with speakers in all parts of the House, including Conservatives—particularly the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd)—I welcome the Bill. We face great challenges as a Parliament, and Government face great challenges in building an inclusive society. We must ourselves challenge bigotry, prejudice and discrimination. We must ensure that people's life chances are determined on the basis of their merit rather than their background, the colour of their skin or their ethnic origin.
As others have said today, the murder of Stephen Lawrence and the Lawrence family's struggle for justice shine a light for all of us who seek to get the law right. Everyone, I hope, can empathise with the sense of injustice, the suffering and the pain experienced by Neville and Doreen Lawrence. The British people responded positively and constructively to the courage and dignity shown by Mrs. Lawrence, a mother who had


lost her son in tragic and terrible circumstances, and Mr. Lawrence, a father who, although his son had been murdered, could not secure justice from the system.
Like many others, my constituency in suburban north London has a rich ethnic and cultural diversity. It contains a long-established and vibrant Jewish community, the largest number of Cypriots—both Greek and Turkish—outside Cyprus, a significant and growing Asian community and many people from African and Caribbean backgrounds. My constituents see that diversity as a source of great strength and opportunity for our local community. Overwhelmingly, there is acceptance and, indeed, celebration of that diversity. It is a community in harmony.
Tragically, however, that harmony sometimes breaks down. Last autumn, Abdul Osman, an 18-year-old black student at Southgate college, was killed in Southgate. Michael Menson was murdered in the neighbouring constituency of Edmonton. I have spoken in the Chamber about events in the Oakwood ward of my constituency, where a small group of white youths conducted a sustained campaign of racist harassment, directed mostly against the Asian community, but also against the local Jewish community. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took the opportunity of visiting my constituency to meet some of the families and business people who had been affected by that campaign of racist harassment.
That is a good example of where harassment can be tackled. The various local agencies—the police, local authority, local schools, as well as the people themselves in that area—came together through the Enfield racial incidents action group and the Oakwood focus group to examine ways of tackling both the causes of racist crime and the racist crime itself. As a consequence, the latest statistics from that part of my constituency show a significant fall in its incidence.
It is salutary to remember that the full weight of race relations legislation does not apply to the public sector, yet we already see some good examples of excellent practice, as I have described, including in the police. The former Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, who in the 1950s and 1960s was a consultant in the House to the Police Federation of England and Wales and, later, the Home Secretary when the race relations legislation was going through, has made the point that has been made by many hon. Members: the police should never have been exempted from the legislation. The Bill is welcome, but it should have been introduced 25 years ago. 
As other hon. Members have said, it is worth reminding ourselves of the Britain of the 1960s and 1970s—a Britain in which hotels had signs saying, "No dogs, no Irish, no Blacks", where north London golf clubs regularly excluded Jewish people from membership, and where pubs and shops could and did refuse to serve people simply on the basis of the colour of their skin.
I remember as a 10-year-old in the mid-1970s going with my parents to demonstrate against the National Front as it marched through the streets of multi-racial north London, seeking to spread its message of hate and division. Looking at the debates in Hansard on earlier race relations legislation, I find it shocking to read the arguments that were used. Perhaps it is less shocking when we realise that they are still used today, as we have

heard—arguments that, generally, would be regarded as unacceptable in 2000 when considering race, although such language is regularly used in the House of Commons and, more particularly, in the other place when Parliament discusses discrimination on the ground of sexuality.
The Race Relations Act has had a powerful impact in shaping public attitudes. I do not believe that any hon. Member has asserted what was implied by the hon. Member for Aldershot—that changing legislation will in itself change conditions and determine people's attitudes. The process is far more sophisticated and complicated. I believe firmly that legislation can and has made a difference. Progress over the past 25 to 30 years has been real, but we still have a long way to go.
Institutional racism is not a term that was invented by Macpherson. It was not referred to only in the light of the Stephen Lawrence case. There is nothing new about the concept. The report of Lord Scarman's inquiry, which was set up following the disturbances in Brixton almost 20 years ago, addressed institutional racism. It said:
If … the suggestion being made is that practices may be adopted by public bodies as well as private individuals which are unwittingly discriminatory against black people, then this is an allegation which deserves serious consideration and, where proved, swift remedy.
Two decades later, we finally have the opportunity to provide that swift remedy, which Lord Scarman called for in the early 1980s.
The Bill is too late for the Lawrence family. It is too late for the family of Michael Menson. It is too late for the other families to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Witney referred. I am not saying that, had the Bill been in place 25 years ago, those tragedies would not have happened; they may well still have happened. However, if the Race Relations Acts had covered the public sector from the outset, we might have had the type of sea-change in institutions, such as the police and other public bodies, that we are now starting to witness. The culture of institutional racism could have been challenged, and families such as the Lawrence and Menson families could have been relieved of having to go through the additional burden of having to fight for justice when they were having to cope with bereavement. That is the point of the Bill.
Like other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I welcome the shift announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to cover indirect as well as direct discrimination. However, I shall not deal at length with that matter, as other hon. Members have done so in full detail. I have no doubt, however, that discrimination today is more subtle and sophisticated than it was 20 or 30 years ago. We are less likely to see the overt differential practice and treatment that various speakers have mentioned, but we are more likely to see requirements created, the outcomes of which in practice disadvantage ethnic minorities. When those requirements cannot be justified, surely it is our duty to make them unlawful. That, I believe, is what indirect discrimination is all about.
If we were not to address indirect discrimination, we would be failing to meet the challenge set by the Macpherson report to extend the full force of race relations legislation. There is also a good case to be made that we would be creating a recipe for legal confusion and unnecessary complexity. The distinctions between direct and indirect discrimination are not always clear or simple—legal experts in the sphere of discrimination


themselves often disagree about whether something constitutes direct or indirect discrimination. My fear is that, if we took only the half step forward and extended provisions to cover only direct discrimination by public bodies, we would be failing those members of the public who are seeking a legal remedy to correct a civil wrong.
Like other hon. Members, I very much welcome the proposal to amend the Bill to create a positive duty on public authorities. That follows similar provisions in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and in the legislation creating the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, as well as in the legislation establishing the Greater London Authority. It builds on widespread existing good practice, some of which I have already mentioned, and it has been widely welcomed not only by the Commission for Racial Equality, but by the Confederation of Indian Organisations, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Runnymede Trust.
The creation of such a duty is an essential further step if we are truly to root out all the forms of racism that disfigure and divide our country. I very much hope that, in Committee, the Government will ensure that that positive duty is clearly and explicitly enshrined in the Bill.
As other hon. Members have said, the Commission for Racial Equality has made the point to Members of Parliament that the Government should consult on the details of the operation, monitoring and enforcement of those new provisions once the legislation is amended.
Excellent work is already being done in schools and community organisations across the country. The Bill is not imposing something new or alien, but simply building on existing good practice in many parts of the country. I believe that its provisions can go hand in hand with the Government's plans for citizenship education to form part of the national curriculum from 2002. Such education is about celebrating the diversity of modern Britain, not teaching people about only some aspects of our culture. It is about recognising that modern British society is made up of many different forms of culture. I hope that tackling racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia will be an integral part of the new citizenship curriculum.
Late last year, I had the privilege of seeing such good practice in action when I joined a seminar at St. Ignatius school, a local secondary school in Enfield, to discuss the holocaust. The seminar was led by two students, John Prendergast and Joseph Egan, who had joined a Holocaust Educational Trust delegation to Auschwitz and came back to report on their visit and discuss the historical context of the holocaust and its lessons for today. That is a good example of what we should include as part of citizenship in the national curriculum.
By creating a positive duty on public authorities, we can ensure that such good practice is spread throughout the country. The Bill will open the door to real progress towards racial equality. Strengthening race relations legislation is good not just for the minority ethnic communities, but for all of us.
As many have said during the debate, after almost three decades of legislation, there is no room for complacency. We are fast approaching the first anniversary of the appalling London nail bomb attacks in Brixton, Brick lane and Soho. They serve as a potent reminder to the House that racism and bigotry have not gone away. It is only right that we act now to do all that we can to root out

racist discrimination in all its forms. We cannot afford to wait another 25 years. I commend the Government for bringing the Bill before us.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: I shall make a very brief contribution from my perspective as a Member whose constituency is not metropolitan, but largely rural. It has a small ethnic minority community and the issue of racism does not assume as much salience as perhaps it should.
It would be wrong to assume that the Bill was not of the utmost relevance to everyone in the United Kingdom, because it has to do with the nature and values of the wider society to which we belong. It would also be wrong to assume that people from all over the country were not profoundly troubled by the death of Stephen Lawrence and the failure of the subsequent police investigation—matters that have spurred on this legislation.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the Bill represents a step change in race relations and that society would have to pay a very heavy price if we did not legislate—a moral cost and a cost of greater disaffection and higher crime rates. Those are matters that affect us all and we have a common interest in ensuring that we have a fair and tolerant society.
I pay tribute to the eloquent comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Mr. Woodward) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), who bore testimony to the issues that we should tackle to create a fairer and more tolerant society. It is high time the Race Relations Act 1976 was updated. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) that, as Lord Callaghan said recently, with the benefit of hindsight, not including the police within the ambit of that Act was a serious omission. I welcome the fact that the Bill will extend the provisions of that Act to the police and all public authorities that are not currently covered.
The Government are entirely right to acknowledge the recommendations of the Macpherson report and to recognise the existence of institutional racism. As a society, we have learned much since 1976. There has been a process of education here and in the wider society about the nature of institutional racism.
I am pleased that the Government are committed to tabling an amendment to outlaw indirect discrimination. I am pleased that the Government are taking such a robust approach. I am also pleased that they are prepared to table an amendment to place a duty on public bodies to promote social equality.
In conclusion, the Bill is part of the Government's wider agenda of promoting equality of opportunity and creating a genuinely tolerant and inclusive society, and I welcome it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) on his speech, which was a model of the bipartisan support for the Bill. I may speak for slightly longer than he did, but I shall attempt not to try the patience of the House, particularly as I have not been able to listen to all the speeches that have been made this afternoon. However, I have heard some good speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
My speech is based partly on my own experience and partly on that of a doctor. I shall relate the doctor's story in the first person as it is better than saying that he or she is Indian. Let us imagine that I came to Britain in the late 1970s with a British passport. I spoke the language fluently, played Bob Dylan rather well on my guitar and had qualifications. I could not have been better equipped, but it has not all been plain sailing. The story does not end in total misery, as I became a consultant. However racism is not behind me—it does not stop when one finally attains a senior position.
I should say in passing that I do not relate this story because the national health service has not been trying to put things right; when my wife was Minister for Health and then Secretary of State for Health, she worked very hard to get the NHS to overcome some of the difficulties that I am about to describe.
I now return to the doctor's story. No one taught me, but criticism was rife when I failed. This is the one characteristic of racism that I find most distressing. My white friends received gentle instruction, but I was largely excluded unless I asked. At every stage in my career I have had to outperform white doctors in order to get a job.
In my senior house officer post there was no in-house teaching of any sort. When I told my boss that I was leaving, he was aghast. He took me aside and, in the presence of his clinical assistant, said, "Do you realise you are resigning from a white job?" I apologised profusely, but left.
I was delighted when I got my first general surgical rotational job. I had a boss who liked me, but a ward sister who did not. No matter how hard I tried, she reported me and took pleasure in disliking me. How can one tell that dislike is racist? Because it is instant and intractable.
The most racist job that I did was as a rotating registrar in surgery in the east midlands. The consultant ignored me from the outset and spoke only to my senior house officer, a white doctor. He taught me nothing. If I could not negotiate the rectosigmoid junction at colonoscopy it was, "tut tut". If the senior house officer could not do it, it was all encouragement and teaching.
I went to the fellowship examinations in London with a white fellow registrar in general surgery. He was asked to describe a cholecystectomy. I was asked rather aggressively to describe a hemilaminectomy, but only after the examiner had determined that I had no experience in the procedure. I failed, he passed. I got antidepressant pills from my general practitioner; he was given a research post.
After four years as a rotating senior house officer and registrar, I received my first summons from the higher surgical training committee. "Do you really think that you will become a general surgeon?", they asked. I was 28, had two fellowships, had written two papers and was completing a recognised registrar rotation in surgery in a teaching hospital. I had encountered no problems with my attitude or capability. "Yes," I replied.
It was at that point that someone else appeared. He sat down and all eyes turned to him. He did not beat about the bush, although I had never worked for him. He told me I was being quite unrealistic. He went on to remind me that I was Indian and he took me through the fate of

all the previous Indian registrars in the city I was working in. "So you see, not one has made it," he said. The six other consultants present just sat there studying their pens. The committee had found me unsuitable for further training because I was Indian. I decided to move but to give my love for surgery one last go.
The story continues with an application for a research fellowship and I congratulate the editor of the British Medical Journal on putting it into last week's issue—volume 320, 4 March 2000, for anybody who wishes to read the rest of that personal view.
That story was published in this millennium but it is not so different from what I found when I was a junior Minister in the Department of Employment and I talked to the unions in ACAS—the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. I do not think that they will mind my saying this, because things have moved on since 1985. At that time, I asked the unions why there were no black or Asian field officers in ACAS. I was asked in return, "How do you know that they would be acceptable to all employers?" That attitude has changed.
I listened to the 24 members of the race relations employment advisory service, and I congratulate Sir Michael Quinlan, then the Permanent Secretary at the Department, for agreeing to let two of the people from that service come into the Department. That Department had, in effect, responsibility for equal opportunities on grounds of sex and disability, as well as race, and Sir Michael produced a report to which—I hope—people in Departments still occasionally refer. It showed that even when a Department tried to do the right things as well as advocate them, it can fail, directly and indirectly.
The Bill will make a difference, but not the biggest difference. Law at its best is obeyed, clear and fair. There are plenty of examples of areas in which race relations legislation already bites, but is not always obeyed. I shall not give the details of one example, but I helped a police officer and the Metropolitan police to come to an agreement and settle an employment case for probably a third of the cost of fighting the issue out. Both those who have reason to complain, and those against whom they complain, can often get together to resolve issues and learn from that.
The people who really have to learn are top and middle management. In some parts of the public service, people are determined to make things better, but some are willing to sit at a higher level without ensuring that a regular routine improves matters at a lower level. I shall give an illustrative example. When I asked a slightly complicated question of the Home Office about at what stage and at what cost each claim by a Metropolitan police officer for discrimination on the grounds of race came in, the answer was that it was too expensive to provide the information. I suspect that it was too expensive—or at least would have cost more than £200. However, if there were so many cases that providing the answer would have been too expensive, I would have welcomed an answer that added that more extensive information could be made available reasonably easily.
In my view, the Metropolitan police service is doing much more than it has done before, and in five years it will be able to look back and say that its progress since 2000 has been marked. I also acknowledge the presence of the ethnic teams from the armed forces, at the party given in the Locarno rooms of the Foreign and


Commonwealth Office yesterday. The people there talked about their work in trying to overcome perceptions of racial inequality in the services. Things are not yet completely right, but I welcome the existence of those teams which can provide the positive action needed to make progress.
I would have liked to make other points, but as I missed part of the debate I shall not trespass on the good will of the House.
I have two final points. First, race and sex are not disabilities, and they should not be a handicap. Secondly, the people who have the responsibility for putting things right are not the victims, but white, middle class men in full-time occupations. They are the ones who have to meet what Richard Stone, a member of the Lawrence inquiry, called our challenge and our responsibility. We are the people who should be able to say to future generations that, in part because of what we did, the colour of our skin is no more important than the colour of our eyes or hair. People may notice it, but it tells them nothing more about us.

6 pm

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)—who said that he would not continue to be in his place—talked of my constituents bearing the brunt of other races in Britain. That phrase provoked me to speak in the debate, as it suggests that the contribution of other races to our community has all been negative. I am confident that many of his constituents enjoy the services of an excellent Chinese restaurant, which is provided by one of those races which has migrated to Britain. I say that in the sure and certain knowledge that probably no constituency in this country does not have such an example.
In my constituency, people have come from Poland, the Punjab and Pontypridd to work, and the children of Slough learn about the richness of all those different cultures and communities as part of their daily experience. It is a question not of bearing the brunt, but of learning about the world of which we are a part and obtaining new and rich experiences.
The hon. Member for Aldershot described the inadvertent racism of a police officer as though the police officer were the victim. He failed to understand why the real victim is not the person in a position of responsibility who can and should learn about the consequences of racial abuse, but the person who cannot learn to change the colour of their skin. That is why having legislative protection against racism is an absolute signal of a civilised society.
Racial violence and abuse work like terrorism. There is not just one victim, but everybody who shares that ethnicity and could be a victim is victimised by it. That is why it is a serious public duty upon us all to protect people who share that kinship with the victim and feel threatened. I am glad that we are moving to bring to an end something that horrified me—the fact that there are communities in this great city who were more afraid of the police than of the criminals who threatened them. The Bill is about putting an end to that kind of society.
The hon. Member for Aldershot talked about people coming from Bangladesh to Britain as though the only reason they did so was to better themselves. Some did, but people now come from Bangladesh to Britain to be with their mums, dads, husbands, wives and children.

Ms Buck: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Bangladeshi catering industry now has a larger turnover than the coal, iron and steel industries combined?

Fiona Mactaggart: Indeed. We must not fail to recognise not just the cultural contributions made by different communities which, from Anglo-Saxon times, have come to Britain, but also their economic contribution to the success of our island.
I was impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), who has reason to know the consequences of unthinking prejudice on factors over which people have no control. The moves towards equality in Northern Ireland provide a beacon for the process here. In that context, I hope to seek assurances from the Minister on issues which I hope will be looked at in Committee.
First, I am worried about the power in the Bill that allows discrimination on ethnic as well as nationality grounds in the administration of immigration. For example, out of two people with Yugoslav nationality, we might be willing to accept as a refugee only one—not as a result of discrimination on ethnic grounds, but because only that one is a genuine refugee. The Bill evinces a certain muddle-headedness that must be sorted out.
Secondly, I hope that the bond scheme will not be restricted to the Indian subcontinent. If the granny of a constituent of mine from Jamaica were refused a visit to the United Kingdom, why should not my constituent have the right to put up a bond as an insurance that that granny would go home? I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to study that possibility, and not to rule it out.
The Bill's definition of a public body is also a little shaky. That problem was solved in the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Bill should adopt the same approach. Increasingly, organisations such as Group 4 are taking on public responsibilities, and they want to be certain that they are covered in the same way as public bodies. The clear definition of public bodies in the 1998 Act is better than what is proposed in schedule 1.
I was pleased to hear of the research being conducted into Islamophobia in Britain. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that he will consider extending more effective protection to the Muslim communities against the consequences of that phobia in future. I recognise, however, that that cannot be accomplished in this Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said earlier this week that he had not put forward a single Bill that had not been improved in Committee. He has announced already that he is planning to improve this Bill in Committee, and I am glad of that. I hope very much that some of the points made today will be included among the matters being considered by the Committee. I do not want to end up with a Bill that is merely good: I want it to be excellent, and to make it clear that everyone in the country is of equal value, with equal rights and an equal opportunity to be served by the state.

Mr. David Lidington: Let me begin by stating that I agree wholly with the objectives set out for the Bill by the Home Secretary in his introductory speech. I share his commitment to seek to build a society in which all British citizens, regardless of race, colour or religion,


have an equal and honoured place and are encouraged to make the greatest possible use of the talents and energies given to them by God.
Although I shall not agree with everything said by Labour Members, whether Front Benchers or Back Benchers, and although I shall certainly have questions about certain aspects of the Bill, I do not doubt for a moment the personal commitment of Ministers, nor the sincerity of their intentions in bringing this Bill before Parliament today.
There is sometimes a temptation on the part of politicians, whichever party is in power, to place a little too much confidence in the power of the law alone to transform things. We do not change attitudes—certainly not in the short term—simply by passing an Act of Parliament. However, I accept that the law has a part to play here.
I thought that some of the speeches of Labour Members, including that of the Home Secretary, did not make enough mention of the beneficial effect of the traditions of tolerance, respect for diversity and respect for individual freedom that have been characteristic features of British society as it has evolved over recent centuries and which the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) talked of in his contribution. The hon. Gentleman said, and I agree, that what has been achieved has been underestimated in some parts of the House. While we should recognise, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) said, that a great deal still remains to be done, we can take legitimate pride in what Britain has done for racial integration in coming to terms in recent decades with the arrival in this country of a large number of people of various ethnic origins.
Two things are very striking in the debates on immigration and race relations that took place in the 1960s. To some extent, the predictions that a large proportion of the population of British cities would in future be formed from people from ethnic minority communities have been borne out. However, the prophecies that that would result in riots, racial conflict on an unprecedented scale and communal tension that could not be cured have been proved demonstrably false.
The duty that falls on us as legislators and political leaders is to take forward into a new century the success that previous generations have had. We must build on the success that many British blacks and Asians are making of their lives in the United Kingdom, whether in business, sport, art, literature or even politics. I say in passing that I shall regard it as a happy day, which I confidently expect to come after the next election, when there are black and Asian Britons sitting on the Conservative Benches of the House of Commons as well as on the Labour Benches.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West also warned of the risks of creating a cult of victimhood. I think that he was right to say that although the prime responsibility rests with those who are entrusted with positions of authority and leadership, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) also said, the leaders of the ethnic communities also have a responsibility to help to bring about the tolerant and plural society that we wish to see evolve.
Much has been achieved, but we still face great challenges. The Home Secretary, along with the hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for

Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), talked of how British society has been influenced and shaped over many centuries by successive waves of immigration to these islands. It is also the case that each wave of immigration has been accompanied by conflict, discrimination and resentment on the part of both the host and the incoming communities. Before I was elected, I spent much time studying the minutes of the Privy Council of the 16th century. In, I think, Essex and Suffolk, there were riots and violence because of the arrival in East Anglian villages of groups of Dutch people fleeing Spanish persecution in the Netherlands. The powers of that age had to deal with that problem, just as we must take account both of successes already achieved and the challenges that remain.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Does my hon. Friend agree that when a new community comes to live in a host country, one of the inevitable initial problems is language? Does he agree that, as with my grandfather who could not read or write English properly until the end of his life, what really counts is that children and grandchildren of an immigrant community make the effort to integrate with the English language and the English culture? Does he agree that we must pay due attention to the need for incoming communities to adopt the language of the host community?

Mr. Lidington: We could have a long debate about educational minority support grants and section 11 funding. I agree that fluency in both written and spoken English is an essential passport for many people from new immigrant communities to entering the mainstream of British life. The communities themselves are certainly responsible for that, because they have an interest in taking advantage of opportunities here; but those of us who exercise leadership in politics are responsible for doing all we can to ensure that the opportunity to gain proficiency in the English language is given as soon as possible to those who need help.
Immense problems remain, as hon. Members on both sides have said. We must be honest about the mistrust of our police forces among British blacks and British Asians, particularly among young men from those communities. I saw that mistrust when I was a candidate for an inner-London seat about a decade ago. It is disturbing, and it merits political action on its own terms. However, mistrust also makes the police less effective in fighting crime, because it means that they are denied information and evidence that they need to secure convictions, including the conviction of those who are terrorising members of the ethnic minority communities themselves.
I have no doubt that the problem of mistrust of the police among young British blacks and Asians has been worsened by the mishandling of the investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence by the Metropolitan police. However, the roots of the problem go deeper than that. They derive in part from the experience of discrimination—perceived and actual—and from a belief that the police, and the white majority, have not taken racial harassment or racial attacks sufficiently seriously. The hon. Member for Bradford, West was unfair in his strictures on the previous Government, who took some steps towards improving the priority given to this problem.
The matter was brought home to me only just after my election to this place in 1992. On one of the first occasions that I visited the Aylesbury mosque, I saw some extremely offensive racist graffiti that had been painted on a wall nearby. Yes, they were offensive, and if the wall had been plastered with graffiti about the Conservative party, I should probably have complained and grumbled a bit. Indeed, during the previous Parliament, one might have borne that with a certain amount of equanimity—Labour Members may soon have to learn to do the same.
However, when I talked to members of the Muslim community in my constituency, I was struck by how the graffiti had taken on tremendous significance—they felt they showed how they were seen by other people in the town. Although I understand that those responsible for that graffiti were caught and convicted, members of the Muslim community felt—rightly or wrongly—that that act made their acceptance within the community of Aylesbury less secure than it had been or than they wanted it to be. For that reason, I came to the view that we have a duty to ensure not only that we understand that racial harassment and racial attacks are evil in themselves, but that they have a profound social effect because they poison community relations in a town or district.
Sometimes, young people from the ethnic minorities—although not exclusively—receive some brusque treatment from police officers. I shall mention the difficulties of the police later in my speech. However, those of us who make a point of supporting the police also need to bear in mind that the experiences of my noble Friend Lord Taylor of Warwick or the Bishop of Stepney demonstrate that there is a genuine problem, which, to their credit, the police are actively trying to address.
The other half of the problem is that the police themselves feel beleaguered—especially in London and other great cities. They, too, often go in fear of physical attack or threat. We are rightly offended and ashamed by the fact that the murderers of Stephen Lawrence are still free to swagger around the streets of south London. The grief and sense of loss of Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence can never be assuaged by anything that we do in this place. However, it is also true that the murderers of Keith Blakelock are walking around free somewhere in north London. The people who maimed Richard Coombes and drove him from the career that he loved are still walking free. Their families' suffering can never be assuaged by Act of Parliament.
The police rightly feel that they have been unfairly traduced in some of the debate consequent on the Macpherson report. A detective constable told me that, on the day the report was published, he had attended Southwark Crown court where he gave evidence as the officer in charge of a case that resulted in a long custodial sentence for a man guilty of racial attacks. The constable said that, even after all the efforts of the Scotland Yard press office, that case merited about two inches somewhere on page 8 of a newspaper. It had taken weeks of painstaking police work and dedication to assemble the evidence to secure that conviction, but that seemed to be of no account in the hurricane of criticism that descended on the force in which he served.
When we talk about labels such as institutional racism, we should be clear about several points. I am not persuaded that the failures of service experienced by the Lawrence family and other people in that case were exclusive to people in the black community. I know of a

fair number of white youths who feel that the police treated them roughly and brusquely when they were stopped. There is a wider problem that the label of institutional racism does not accurately describe.
As my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) pointed out, the label of institutional racism—whatever the wording in Sir William Macpherson's report—has led, in practice, to a widespread belief among police officers that they have all been branded as racists. Many people think that that is the charge that has been levelled at the Metropolitan police. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham said, the last thing that any of us wants is a state of affairs in which the use of the label aggrieves the police, fuels resentment among ethnic communities and brings about the very state of confrontation that we all want to end.

Mr. Stephen Twigg: I am listening carefully to the balanced approach that the hon. Gentleman is taking—in stark contrast to the speech of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). When I spoke earlier, I suggested that the hon. Gentleman could take the opportunity to repudiate the remarks of the hon. Member for Aldershot. I would be grateful if he would do that.

Mr. Lidington: I was about to say that I do not agree—I have made that clear in what I have said hitherto—with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said. However, the House would be foolish if it ignored the fact that the opinions that he quite legitimately expressed are shared by many of our fellow citizens. It is right that those arguments should be addressed maturely in debate rather than being simply pilloried and branded, which is not the way forward. He expressed his concerns about the Bill's possible impact on stop and search, and those concerns are shared quite widely by many people who would probably share the principled opposition to racism that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate outlined in his speech.
One police superintendent told me that he was under great pressure from ethnic community leaders in his patch to reconsider his stop-and-search practices. He had done so, and he found that his officers had indeed stopped a disproportionately large number of people from a particular ethnic minority. However, he then described the difficulty that he faced. When he examined the papers case by case, he discovered that his officers had stopped frequently a relatively small number of people who had been identified through intelligence-led policing as villains who were involved in the type of street crime that stop-and-search techniques are extremely useful in deterring and in helping to secure convictions for. He asked how he was supposed to reconcile good, intelligence-led policing with what he believed were the demands on him to reduce the number of stops to match the ethnic proportions of the population that he served.
The Home Secretary said—I hope that the Minister will confirm this—that such police officers need not worry because other factors to justify stop-and-search should give them legal protection. However, the officer's question needs to be addressed seriously and we shall have the opportunity to consider it in Committee. It is important to guard against the law of unintended consequences.
The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) said that it was a great mistake not to have included the whole public sector in the 1976 Act. When I read the Committee proceedings on that Bill, I found it striking that the nature and scope of exclusions from its provisions were barely discussed. It is incumbent on us carefully to consider the detail of the Government's proposals to make sure that we do not end up putting into statute a provision that will have unintended, unwanted consequences.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The whole House would support that point, and I hope that the Standing Committee will do so when it comes to consider the Bill. I underline my hon. Friend's point by stating that four of my middle-aged black friends have been stopped. One, Bill Morris, has not, as far as I know, possibly because he is the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union and has a driver. Bishop John Sentamu, our colleague Lord Taylor, the Liberal peer Lord Dholakia and Neville Lawrence were stopped. I do not know of a single white friend of my age who has been stopped. That is the underlying problem, and an outside audit of what the police do would be helpful to them.

Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes his point well, and I agree with him.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) called for legal challenges to housing allocation and education policies, and I will want to explore in Committee exactly what the Bill will entail for services other than policing. Lord Bassam said, during debates in another place, that the Government were concerned that a legal challenge on grounds of indirect discrimination could
potentially include any age-based policy because of the different demographic profiles of different racial groups, and also any regional policy because of the different regional spread of different racial groups.
He went on to say that
challenges could be mounted to those policies that are helping individuals from ethnic minority communities the most.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 1999; Vol. 608, c. 130.]
There is a need to explore further the reasons for the Government's change of heart.
Other hon. Members have mentioned the definitions of public bodies and the cost of the proposals. Those, too, are matters that we want to explore. I shall want also to explore further who should carry out investigations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham said that if the Bill is to work, our purpose must be not to identify scapegoats but to help and encourage individuals and organisations in the public sector to improve the way in which they apply in practice the commitment to equality of opportunity that already exists on paper and in declared policy.
When I read the Lawrence report, one of the sentences that I found most striking came near the end, and it was made by the coroner at the inquest into Mr. Lawrence's death. In his concluding remarks, following the jury's verdict, he said:
We must teach our young, both in the family and in our schools that each individual, regardless of their race, regardless of their colour, regardless of their religion has the right to live peacefully without any fear or intimidation.

That is an accurate description of what virtually every Member of the House is committed to.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West, I believe that one of the tests for us is whether in the next two or three generations we see British blacks and Asians in the Cabinet and as High Court judges, chief constables, senior commanders in the armed forces and permanent secretaries of Whitehall Departments, and know that they are there not by extraordinary achievement, but simply as a natural reward for the talent, application and drive of individual British citizens.
I want a society, and I want my children to grow up in a nation, where everybody, no matter what ethnic or cultural group they originally came from, can not only take pride in their history but feel that they are inheritors of the political, cultural and artistic tradition of Britain, and that at the same time they are helping to play their part in and to shape the future of the mainstream of British life. It is against that objective that I look to test the legislation before us.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The Bill fulfils a commitment to early legislation made by the Government in response to the report of the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence. It will significantly improve the ability of members of the public to hold to account public authorities that act in a racially discriminatory manner. It will make a difference. I hope that the Stephen Lawrence case will be seen as a watershed in race relations in Britain, from which we can go forward. The Bill is part of that key process.
During the debate we heard a number of strong speeches from both sides of the House. Having heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), I am proud that he has decided to join the Labour party. He is very welcome to the party and spoke enormously well on our behalf today.
There were strong speeches also from my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart).
We heard good speeches from the Conservative Benches. I thought that in many ways the best speech of the day was that from the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), who made an important contribution to the debate. The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) also showed that many in the Conservative party support the creation of a successful multicultural Britain. I welcome that.
It is a pity that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) let the Conservative party and the House down, with a speech of monumental littleness and saloon bar prejudice. He posed as a defender of the police against race relations legislation, but as a former parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation and as a Home Office Minister, I know that most police officers in Britain would want to dissociate themselves from the hon. Gentleman's speech and his prejudice. They would have been appalled by it, just as I hope that they would have agreed with the comments of the parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation, the right hon. Member for Fareham.
I welcome the support for the Bill from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, which was enthusiastic and principled. I welcome, too, the Tory Front-Bench support, which seemed to be carefully worded. It was the classic approach, particularly the opening speech of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), supporting the objective and endorsing none of the detail, but picking apart some of the substance. At least, that seemed to be the right hon. Lady's approach. I was pleased to note that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who also speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, adopted a far more positive approach to the Bill and to tackling racism in Britain than she did. The hon. Gentleman taught his right hon. Friend some lessons today about how these issues should be addressed.[Interruption.] It is always nice to sow disunity on the other side. I had hoped for a broader approach. It would have been helpful if we had had a more positive response from the right hon. Lady. It would have sent out from the House a good all-party message, not just to ethnic minorities, but to everyone in our society, that we are determined to make sure that we are a success as a multiracial Britain.

Mr. Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the one disappointing aspect of the summing-up by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) was his lack of commitment to the concept of institutional racism? It is crucial that the subtleties of that key concept are well understood in all parts of the House in order to make progress.

Mr. O'Brien: I agree that that is an important concept, and there has been much misunderstanding of its meaning. If we have time, I shall say a little more about how that misunderstanding has produced some of the problems to which the hon. Member for Aylesbury referred. Some police officers seem to have misunderstood the concept and construed it as a personal criticism, whereas we are highlighting the failures of an institution. Many of us, including me, are members of an institution that has many failings, although its policy is positively anti-racist. It is possible for an institution to have failings and an anti-racist policy.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I agree with the Minister that the one sadness of debating such issues is that the Conservative party, inside and outside the House, sends mixed messages. Some Conservatives make clear their commitment to an anti-racist Britain, while others appear to pander to prejudice and bigotry. Until the Conservative party sorts that out internally and adopts the enlightened side of the argument, many people will not accept it as a responsible custodian of a multi-racial, equal Britain.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is right. We are receiving very mixed messages from the Conservative party. Its mayoral candidate describes as "disgusting" the policy of reintroducing the primary purpose rule that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald retains as an option.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: In a moment. We hear that the right hon. Lady wishes to restore a rule that caused great damage to

British families, especially British-Asian families. One of our first actions was to get rid of it. The Conservative mayoral candidate appears to agree with us that its restoration would be a disgrace. Yet the right hon. Lady disowns the views of the mayoral candidate; she wants to keep open the option of reintroducing the primary purpose rule.
I hope that the right hon. Lady will stand at the Dispatch Box and reassure the people of Britain who come from Asian families that they will not face the appalling, prejudicial primary purpose rule that the previous Government used when the right hon. Lady was a Home Office Minister.

Miss Widdecombe: I ask the Minister to be a little franker—I believe that that is a parliamentary word—in his description of what Steve Norris said. When he used the words "immoral", "disgusting" and "disgraceful", he was referring to the Minister's proposal to introduce a £10,000 bond for people from selected countries. Steve Norris confirmed to me that that was the context of his remarks. Even before the newspaper report, he had already made those comments about the Minister's bond.

Mr. O'Brien: I am appalled that the right hon. Lady stood at the Dispatch Box and made no effort to reassure the Asian people of Britain that she would not seek to restore the primary purpose rule. We now know that she wants to reintroduce that appalling rule.
The Conservative mayoral candidate has not repudiated his remarks in The Times. He said that the Conservative party was proposing to bring back a rule that was enormously offensive. He also said that it was disgusting, immoral and missed the point.

Miss Widdecombe: Your bond.

Mr. O'Brien: The report refers to the right hon. Lady's wish to restore the primary purpose rule. She has had every opportunity to deny that wish. I shall give her another. Will she now tell British-Asian families that, if she got the opportunity—I hope she will not—to restore the primary purpose rule, she would not do it?

Miss Widdecombe: I can tell families in all parts of the community in Britain that our policies will seek to promote good race relations and tackle all abuses of our immigration or asylum systems. The policies that we shall introduce to tackle those abuses will be announced in due course at an appropriate time, not in response to newspaper reports or mischief from the Minister, who is ruining what was hitherto a sensible debate.

Mr. O'Brien: Once again, Asian British people will note the right hon. Lady's failure. In The Independent on 25 February, she suggested that it was inconceivable that the Conservative party would not promise at the next election to restore the primary purpose rule. We have given her the opportunity to deny that, but now we know.

Mr. Singh: Does my hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Lady's comments amount to an accusation that legitimate marriages between people living here and in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are abusive?

Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right that the right hon. Lady appears to be besmirching the name of a large number of British Asian families. Will she now—

Miss Widdecombe: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: In a moment. Will the right hon. Lady give the commitment that she will not seek to restore the primary purpose rule as Conservative party policy? I ask her once again.

Miss Widdecombe: I ask the Minister, very straightforwardly—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer!] No, no. Does he agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) or will he acknowledge that there is some abuse in respect of using marriage as a way into this country? Is there any abuse or not?

Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Lady knows perfectly well that the rules require that marriages be genuine. The primary purpose rule is not about that; it is an anti-family Tory policy.

Fiona Mactaggart: The provisions to prevent entry through made-up and abusive marriages are powerful, but the primary purpose rule was clearly instituted to prevent genuine marriage in the arranged tradition and therefore discriminated against communities for which that is the way to form families. I urge my hon. Friend to continue to press the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on this matter because it concerns many Asian families in my constituency.

Mr. O'Brien: It is clear that for many black and Asian people in Britain—many of whom were born here, as were their parents—some Members of the House have a very long way to go to understand that we need to create a proper multi-racial Britain which is fair, which treats families equally and which does not discriminate against people whose families are perhaps in another part of the world.
Ethnic minorities in this country all too often have to face disproportionate exclusion from many of the better things in British life. They are often disproportionately victims of bad housing and school exclusion and are twice as likely to be unemployed. Their average pay is lower than that of white people, and we will build up problems for the future unless we address discrimination and racism.
Anti-racism is not about helping black and Asian people; it is about our future—white and black. We all live in a multicultural society and we all have a choice: either we make a success of multicultural Britain or we do not. If we fail to address those issues, our children—white and black—will pay the price of that failure. That is why all of us, white and black, have a vested interest in the Bill and in anti-racism. We must make Britain a success as a multicultural society.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald also asked whether the Government have done a U-turn on indirect discrimination. We have not changed our mind

about the desirability of including it in the Bill—we were always in favour of that in principle—but we were concerned about the risks of spurious challenges to Government policy. Having listened carefully to the arguments, we are convinced that the principle of including indirect discrimination outweighs the risks about which we were initially concerned. The Government have been open. We have listened and reflected carefully, which is what the parliamentary process is all about.
Nor have we changed our mind about the need for a positive statutory duty to promote equality. We set out that commitment in our equality statement of 30 November 1999, before the publication of the Bill. What we are doing now is reinforcing that commitment by enshrining the principle in the Bill, leaving room for consultation on how the duty will operate in practice—as promised in our equality statement.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was worried about the police, and in particular about powers to stop and search. I join her in paying tribute to the police, who do a difficult job. When I was an adviser to the Police Federation, I came to understand very well the difficult work that it does. The Bill will not prevent police officers from carrying out their duties, but it will make it unlawful for them to do so in a manner that discriminates directly on grounds of race.
Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 requires officers to have reasonable suspicion that an offence has been or may be committed in order to conduct a stop-and-search operation. Under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, officers must have that reasonable belief. Reasonable grounds for suspicion or belief will depend on the circumstances, but there must be some objective basis. A police officer who goes beyond his powers and stops someone, say, solely on the grounds of race, or otherwise treats someone unfavourably on such grounds, could be challenged on the basis of direct discrimination following the enactment of the Bill.
The Bill will enable discrimination in the use of stop and search to be challenged wherever it is not as a result of the inclusion of indirect discrimination in the Bill. Indirect discrimination is about requirements or conditions with which one racial group is better able to comply than another. In stop and search, no particular requirement or condition is imposed on an individual who is stopped or searched, and, at least, no requirement that cannot be complied with. Indirect discrimination would not apply in that context. The law places the onus on the police officer to have reasonable suspicion or belief to stop and search. Direct discrimination and victimisation, whether witting or unwitting, would apply, and would provide an appropriate remedy.
Probably the best answer to the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald came from the right hon. Member for Fareham, who said that it would be wrong for the state, which should protect all its citizens, to be allowed to discriminate, in the person of its police officers, against those citizens when the private sector could not do so.
The Police Federation has come in for criticism on some of the issues, but I join my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and others in saying that Fred Broughton has sought to overcome some of the cautious approach to


race relations that characterised comments by the federation in the past. He wants it to be much more open, and hopes that many future members will be black or Asian. That reflects well on him and on the federation.
The right hon. Member for Fareham said that the police would be harmed if they continued to be outside the Act. I agree: suspicion would continue to multiply. The effectiveness of stop and search, for example, would be discounted when there was no access to the courts if people felt that it was being used inappropriately. I do not think that the extension granted by the Bill will in any way undermine the ability of the police to do their job effectively. Stop and search has already been the subject of criticism.
In my view, the only legitimate route involves sensible court supervision of the way in which things are done. That will help the police to know where they stand with stop and search. As the right hon. Member for Fareham said, it is socially corrosive when individuals have no remedy for a grievance.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that, before stopping and searching a person, a police officer should ask himself, "Am I doing this for a good cause?" I agree, and I do not think that that applies only to the police. All of us who exercise power in one way or another should ask, "Why are we doing this?". Racism, unwitting or otherwise, undermines the fabric of Britain's multicultural society. I think that the police should join the rest of us in coming within the ambit of the laws that are necessary to protect our society.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West said in a perceptive and well-argued speech, problems can sometimes arise not out of deliberate racism by police officers—in my experience, most police officers are strongly anti-racist—but out of a lack of awareness, an insensitivity that may be unwitting or unintended. In those circumstances, it is right that police officers think carefully about what they do. Our police officers do a wonderful job for us, but, like the rest of us, they have to learn the ways in which to build a stronger multicultural Britain.
On institutional racism, I have already said that there has been some misunderstanding, partly as a result of journalistic licence and the way in which the measure has been presented. We must be clear: most police officers are certainly not racist. However, some institutions may have problems in terms of the way in which they recruit, promote and deal with people who are from ethnic minorities. They should address those issues. In the provision of their services, they may have disproportionately disadvantaged those with whom they are dealing. Those issues should be dealt with. I agree with the hon. Member for Worthing, West, who said that the police are going through a period of change. It is difficult, but in five years' time they will be through it and will be a much better police force as a result.
The right hon. Member for Charnwood raised one important point. He asked whether I agreed that there should be the same law for the public and private sectors. I do not. Laws should be appropriate to the role, the sector and the circumstances. The public sector, for example, should have a duty to promote equality that goes beyond that of the private sector. Broad principles are good,

but they are guides, and should not be applied in all their detail, because they could provide rigidity that does not make for good law making.
Various questions have been raised in relation to immigration rules and the application of those laws, but I will perhaps be able to deal with those in more detail in Committee.
The bond scheme has strong support from many people in the Asian community, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West. The aim is to deal only with the difficult marginal cases. No one who gets a visa today should have to pay a bond under the scheme that we propose to introduce.
Britain is a multicultural society. We are not yet a success as a multicultural society; the Stephen Lawrence inquiry teaches us that. The Government are determined to make Britain a beacon to the world as a successful multicultural society. That is a tough challenge for all of us, but it is not an unrealistic challenge because we have come a long way in the past 25 years since the race relations legislation. We benefit from the diversity in our culture and the success of our ethnic minorities in the professions, academia, business and, indeed, politics.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West reminded us, many stories of ethnic minorities in this country are stories of great success. Many ethnic minority people have succeeded and contributed enormously to this country. Britain is stronger because it is a multicultural society, but there is no room for complacency.
There are problems to be resolved, but the Stephen Lawrence case shows that we are prepared to face up to our problems as a mature democracy and to tackle them. As the hon. Member for Aylesbury said, we deserve credit for having come a long way since the race relations legislation. Perhaps some need to come a little further. Perhaps we need to pick up the pace in the next few years on many issues, as the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) said. We will pick up the pace and move forward on an agenda to create a multicultural Britain. The Bill is part of that strategy and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — RACE RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any increase in expenditure of a Minister of the Crown, government department or other public authority which is attributable to complying with any provision made by virtue of the Act; and
(b) any other increase attributable to the Act in the sums which are payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

EDUCATION

That the draft Education (Student Loans) (Repayment) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.

PENSIONS

That the draft Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Penalties) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Far East Prisoners of War

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]

7 pm

Mr. Martin Bell: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise this most important issue. All hon. Members have a variety of causes and campaigns clamouring for attention—an independent Member has perhaps more than most—but we know that if we take them all up, we will be ineffective on all of them. However, every now and again, a cause comes along that is so just, so right, so compelling and irresistible that it has to be adopted. Such is the case that I speak of today—the case for a one-off British Government gratuity to our heroes: those thousands of still surviving British service men who suffered for so long in Japanese prisoner of war camps.
Most of them now are in their 80s or 90s, although some of them are still in their 70s. It is therefore not a cause that will wait while intergovernmental consultation goes on in back rooms. The need will fade away, as old soldiers fade away. The Japanese Labour Camp Survivors Association has reported the death of 293 of its members in the past calendar year. It may well be that another died today, and that another will die tomorrow. They are dying out by the natural process of attrition.
I have been drawn to this campaign not only by its urgency and its justice, but by some personal associations for which I make no apology. I was one of the last soldiers to be enlisted in the Suffolk Regiment—the Twelfth of Foot—one of the great infantry line regiments of the British Army. Fifteen years before I joined it, the Suffolk Regiment had two battalions—the Fourth and the Fifth—in Singapore, when Singapore fell. Of the Fourth Battalion, 286 men died in Japanese prisoner of war camps. Of the Fifth Battalion, 271 men died. There was a similar terrible death toll among the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Battalions of the Royal Norfolk Regiment and the First and Second Battalions of the Cambridgeshire Regiment, which made up the Eighteenth East Anglian Division.
There is not a community in my native East Anglia that has not been touched in some way by that. We remember it, as do so many communities in the north-west, part of which I now represent. On 24 June, I shall be leaving my constituency early to attend a reunion of 300 of those grand old soldiers, who belong to the South Suffolk Association. I very much hope that I shall be able to join them and congratulate them on the successful conclusion of this campaign. It is a campaign of great importance.
More than 50,000 British service men were captured by the Japanese, mostly in Singapore, but others after naval engagements, in 1942. Of those 50,000, almost a quarter were killed or died in captivity. Many were executed in cold blood in the act of surrendering. I shall return later in my speech to deal with the conditions of captivity, as that it is an important part of the case for special treatment.
So far as is known, there are now 7,335 surviving British far east prisoners of war. With 3,300 widows, that comes to a little over 10,600 people whom we believe should qualify for compensation.
The case was taken up by the Royal British Legion last autumn, and this is the first time that we have been able to make the case in the House of Commons. The campaign has the open and declared support of 328 Members of Parliament—almost exactly half the membership of the House. Earlier this year, a delegation from the Legion met the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), as did a parliamentary delegation composed of the hon. Members for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) and for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and me.
We found the Minister sympathetic, but the case calls for very much more than sympathy. It calls for active intervention. We now believe that our pleas for justice—for it is justice—and the case of the old soldiers themselves are being heard in No. 10 Downing street. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will provide those necessary assurances.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman will know of my longstanding interest in the matter. I agree that the case that he is making is now absolutely compelling. In April 1998, the late Derek Fatchett, who was then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said that the Government would no longer be pressing the Japanese Government to meet their moral responsibilities. However, have not the Isle of Man and Canada said that, if the United Kingdom Government will not press the Japanese on the issue, they themselves will step into the breach?

Mr. Bell: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Such action from the Government would draw the acclamation not just of the entire House, but of the entire country.
It has been argued that compensation should properly be a matter not for the British, but for the Japanese Government. So it should have been. Japan made a compensation payment in 1952, following the 1951 treaty of San Francisco with the United Kingdom and other countries. That compensation payment was £76 per veteran. Not only was that sum trivial, knowing what we know now of the treatment of those men, it was insulting. It was made from the sequestered Japanese assets in this country.
New evidence has since come to light that the British Government failed in their duty in 1955 when they decided not to take advantage of an article of the San Francisco treaty that would have provided for further claims if Japan had concluded more advantageous arrangements with other countries. Lord Reading's reasoning at that time is now in the public domain. In a footnote, he stated:
We are at present unpopular enough with the Japanese without trying to exert further pressure, which would be likely to cause the maximum resentment for the minimum advantage.
Hon. Members might care to think about the diplomatic cast of mind that such a comment represents—a triumph of expediency over principle that has been the curse of our diplomacy down the ages.
So it was that the far east prisoners of war were abandoned by the Government of that time and left to do what they could through the Japanese courts by their own actions and at their own expense. It cost a lot of money, took a lot of time and was not successful. Time was not on our side. All that the Japanese had to do was nothing and the problem would conveniently fade away.
It therefore seems to me and to the old soldiers that the one Government to which they can reasonably turn for help is their own. The case for gratuity payments is strong and there are precedents. One comes from the United States. The American Government agreed in 1989 to pay a $20,000 gratuity to each of the citizens of Japanese origin who had been interned—in extremely benign circumstances—in the United States during the second world war. The other precedent comes from Canada. Fifteen months ago the Canadian Government announced that they would pay compensation to their former far east prisoners of war at the rate of 18 Canadian dollars a day for each day of captivity, up to a maximum of 24,000 dollars. The Ministers announcing those payments said that the issue had gone on too long and that the time had come to do the right thing. If that was the case for Canadian veterans then, how much more so is it the case for ours after the further passage of time?
This is not a poor country—it is one of the richest in the world. We live in peace and prosperity—a situation that has, to a large extent, been bought by the sacrifices of those who served and suffered. Nowhere were those sacrifices greater than in the Japanese prison camps. The death rate was higher there than in any other theatre of war, including the Normandy landings. I respectfully argue that it is payback time—indeed, it is beyond payback time.
If compensation is paid to former prisoners of war of the Japanese, an objection may be raised that the former prisoners of war of the Germans should also receive something. I believe that the British people, including those who were held in German prisoner of war camps, accept that the cases are different. The Japanese behaved with consistent brutality and disregard of the Geneva conventions, which the Germans, on the whole, did not. The declining band of forgotten heroes, the former far east prisoners of war, are a special case. The survival of each one of them is a miracle.
I have here some letters sent from German and Italian prisoner of war camps to my father, Adrian Bell, who wrote a book called "Corduroy", which many soldiers carried in their kit bags, because he wrote of a peace in England and a farming way of life to which they wanted to return. Those who wrote those letters knew that they would return. Their repatriation was all but sure. He never got a letter from a Japanese prisoner of war camp and neither did anyone else. The Geneva conventions were not observed. The Red Cross was kept out. People died, people were killed and there were war crimes every day.
From time to time I have spoken in the House about the peace and security that we enjoy in this country and how little we understand the nature of modern warfare. How much less do we understand the nature of what happened to them and how they suffered, yet the documentation is there.
I have here the testimony of one of them, Harold Lock of Sudbury in Suffolk, in a pamphlet called "The Forgotten Men". He was 15 when he joined the Royal Navy, and not much older when the destroyer on which he served, HMS Jupiter, was sunk in the battle of the Java sea and he was lucky to struggle to shore with a companion. The Japanese soldiers made them dig their


own graves and they were just about to be executed when they were saved by an English speaking officer. He writes in his book of what they went through:
Four prisoners made a bid to escape, but were reported to the Japanese by some natives from whom they tried to get a boat. They were brought back to the camp and shot. We were all assembled to witness this barbaric act, but no one showed any emotion. Death had become commonplace, and we were getting like robots, all feelings disappearing except the desire to cling to life. It is strange how precious everything seems when you are on the verge of death as most of us were.
For three and a half years those who survived were treated like that, facing the imminent prospect of death at all times. It is difficult for people who have not been close to death to know how that affects people. Those who could not work died. Those who could worked on in vermin-ridden rags. All of them, I believe, were marked for life. To come through such an experience was like living a nightmare for the rest of their lives.
One of the service organisations that I support is Combat Stress, the ex-services mental welfare society, which recognises that long after the body has recovered from such an ordeal, the mind has not. No one suffered more than the thousands of British who were ill-treated by the Japanese.
It is remarkable how cheerful so many of them are, how normal they seem and how slow they have been to campaign for themselves. They are the very reverse of whingeing campaigners. To some extent, we owe it to them to campaign for them.
It is my view that in our lives, especially our parliamentary careers, however long or short they may be—and mine will be shorter—we have the choice between making a difference and filling a space. We can make a difference and the Government can make a magnificent difference, if they will. The opportunity is there and the case is strong. We are asking not for generosity, but for justice. I know that this cause will be supported by people across the country and on both sides of the House and I trust that we shall get a result very quickly.
Finally, it is hard for us, who live in such a peaceful time, to pay this debt of honour, but we owe it to some of the finest gentlemen who ever served under our flag. I urge the Government to help them in the evening of their lives and to pay this debt.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) on securing a debate on such an important issue—one with which all hon. Members feel sympathy. It is an indication of the interest in it that the attendance is rather larger than one would expect, even at 7 pm on a Thursday.
I should apologise to the House as I am wearing an old pair of glasses and find it difficult to see the brief, which is slightly too far away from me.

Dr. Ian Gibson: My hon. Friend needs a good optician.

Dr. Moonie: Indeed I do. I also need not to sit on my glasses.
The question of compensation for those held as prisoners of war in the far east during the second world war is one in which a number of Departments are concerned and my reply today covers issues that also fall within the responsibility of my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health.
Just over 50,000 British service men were captured by the Japanese, many after the fall of Hong Kong and the subsequent fall of Singapore in late 1941 and early 1942. Commonwealth service men fighting with them were also captured. For example, the Canadians had more than 1,600 men captured in Hong Kong and the Australians more than 18,000 in Malaya, Singapore, Java and Sumatra.
The treatment of prisoners of war was governed at the time by the 1929 Geneva convention. Japan had not ratified it, but said that it would, in general, recognise its provisions. However, as we know, it did not do so.
The prisoners of war were held in camps throughout the far east, and while conditions and the availability of the relief supplies that we sent varied considerably between those camps, even the best were harsh. The work that the prisoners had to undertake, together with poor nutrition, and the sometimes brutal ill-treatment, which was so graphically described by the hon. Gentleman, all combined to take their toll of the prisoners, some 25 per cent. of whom did not survive their captivity.
As a safeguard to the prisoners of war, the Japanese should have permitted inspection visits by the protecting power and the Red Cross. In many areas that was refused and even where, with considerable obstructions, visits were permitted, little could be achieved. That avenue, which in Europe produced improvements in the conditions and treatment of prisoners of war in a number of cases, achieved little for those held in the far east.
The British Government were, however, able to make the point strongly that the ill-treatment of the POWs was unacceptable. That was done by means of war crimes trials and, through the Tokyo trials, a number of those held responsible for the ill-treatment of POWs were brought to justice for their crimes.
Uniquely among British POWs, the far east POWs received some compensation after the war for their ill-treatment. They received it from their captors under the terms of the 1951 peace treaty with Japan. They also received the money that the British Government received under the treaty and that they decided to distribute to the POWs and to British civilian internees. The question has been raised many times of the possibility of reopening the peace treaty to seek a higher level of compensation. That is of course a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but I will say that the Government, having examined the position most carefully, accept the legal advice that the peace treaty is closed and cannot now be reopened.
There have also been calls for an inquiry to be set up into the perceived failure of the then Conservative Government to invoke article 26 of the treaty and seek more compensation on the grounds that other countries had signed more favourable agreements. However, the records, which have been publicly available for many years, show that that decision was not taken solely because of the weak position of the Japanese economy at that time and the wish, which was in Britain's interest,


to see it recover. It was also very much influenced by the fact that it was extremely difficult to ascertain what, if any, additional benefits this country would in practice be entitled to and what their worth might be. It is by no means clear, had the treaty been re-opened, that the British Government would have received any additional funds with which to provide compensation. Furthermore, there is no basis on which to reopen the issue of compensation for the far east POWs, because Japan signed no subsequent agreements conferring greater benefits upon the POWs of other countries than those awarded under the treaty.
The Government are very much aware of the depth of feeling that the ill-treatment of the far east POWs continues to evoke and we continue to raise the issue with the Japanese Government and to seek ways to build reconciliation as a means of helping to overcome the past.
At the end of the war, the pressure and support for compensation for the far east POWs was strong. The then Government suggested that the funds likely to be realised under the treaty should be shared on the basis of giving most to those who had suffered most. However, the representatives of the far east POWs wanted a simple per capita distribution, accepting that that might mean only small individual payments.
Those speaking on behalf of the POWs made it clear in the House that in establishing the principle of compensation from the captor, they made no claim of any sort on the British taxpayer. Brigadier Smythe, a leading champion for the cause of the POWs in the House said that on no account would they accept money from the British taxpayer. He went on:
The important thing about this claim is its moral principle. The Far Eastern prisoners of war do not mind so much about the money side as they do that the principle should be established that no nation shall treat the nationals of another when they have them in captivity as the Japanese treated our men.—[Official Report, 10 May 1951; Vol. 487, c. 2226.]
It is clear from the views now being expressed on behalf of the far east POWs and their widows that that belief has now changed. They are seeking what is termed an "ex-gratia gratuity" from the British Government, and thus the British taxpayer. In essence, such a gratuity would be compensation.
It is a policy of long standing that British Governments do not make compensation payments to those who have been prisoners of war on account of their imprisonment. There are many risks implicit for those engaged in conflict and the risk of being captured is sadly one of them. It is unrealistic to suppose that Governments could effectively insure individuals against that risk. Terrible through the conditions suffered by the far east POWs were, it is unrealistic to think that it would be possible to ring-fence just that one group of POWs.

Mr. Bell: I wonder if the Minister actually believes what he is reading.

Dr. Moonie: Yes—otherwise I would not be reading it.
Objective decisions about degrees of suffering many years ago are impossible, and many thousands of other former prisoners of war who also suffered harsh conditions will be watching the outcome of the Royal British Legion's campaign with much interest.
The arguments that have been put forward in support of the claim have of course been considered, and considered with sympathy and care. We are well aware of

the payments, for example, that the Canadian Government have decided to make to that country's far eastern prisoners of war, which amount to some £10,000 for each individual. Many comparisons are made with the treatment of prisoners of war elsewhere, and with money received by other groups; we do not accept that that alters our position.
British forces served throughout the world in the 20th century in two world wars, and in many other conflicts. Of course, they are still serving. For all of them, that service has involved risk and, for many—whether captured or not—it has involved difficult, dangerous and harsh conditions. Some have given their lives; others have received wounds and suffered illness.
The sufferings and needs of all those who are disabled as a result of their service—including any period of captivity—are addressed primarily through the provision by the Department of Social Security of war pensions. The dependants of those who died during their service, or whose subsequent deaths can be linked to their service, are supported through war pensions.
The service men themselves, in some cases, have received war pensions since the time of their leaving the forces; in other cases, where their disabilities have become apparent or worsened later in life, they have received war pensions or increased benefits at that stage. It is our aim in this country to target the resources available to help those whose service-related disabilities are the greatest, awarding pensions in proportion to those disabilities.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On behalf of the House, may I say that we recognise that the Minister replying to these debates does not necessarily give his personal view, but states what the Government have so far not agreed to do? Will he consider what the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) has said in terms of giving recognition, rather than compensation? How is the Government's view different from that of Canada? Did the Canadian Government say that there was something unique about the experience, or did they say that they would have to take this action everywhere? If other Governments do not have to do so everywhere, this Government might do what the previous Government failed to do, which is to provide that recognition.

Dr. Moonie: I can speak only for this Government and our views, and not for the views of the Canadian Government or the deliberations that went on prior to their decision. That is a matter for them.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Cannot the Minister recognise the difference between prisoners of war and prisoners who have been the victims of war crimes? We give compensation to victims of crime. Why not give compensation to victims of war crimes?

Dr. Moonie: I have been making the point that there was a wide variety of suffering in many circumstances in prisoner of war camps, not only in the far east. It would be invidious to single out one group for special treatment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dr. Moonie: I shall not give way. I must make progress or I will be unable to say what I intend to say. If it becomes apparent that I can give way, I will be happy to do so later.
I should stress that anybody whose health has suffered as a result of being a prisoner of war, or the dependants of those who have died for that reason, is entitled now to lodge a claim for a war pension or a war widow's pension.
It is still possible to lodge a claim where health problems emerge many years after leaving the service, or to ask for a war pension to be reviewed where the health of the recipient has deteriorated. That is what we mean when we say that we are targeting resources on need.
The special health needs and problems of the far eastern prisoners of war are also recognised in the provision for them of special tropical disease investigations, so that problems that might not otherwise be recognised as relating to their military service can be picked up. The national health service provides free health care in this country, whereas a number of other countries do not make the same provision. However, there is an extra benefit for veterans here, in that they receive priority over others with the same clinical priority for NHS treatment of their problem, or of the condition for which they receive a war pension.
As I have said, it is not, and has not been, the policy of successive Governments to make across-the-board compensation payments. We prefer to target our resources on those suffering disablement as a result of their service. The Government do not feel, after careful thought, that to depart from this long-standing policy would be justified as being the right or the fair way forward.

Mr. David Heath: The Minister must realise that his answer will deeply disappoint the enormous number of people who recognise that a unique barbarity was visited on the far eastern prisoners of war. Should not that have been recognised by the successive

Governments who have failed those prisoners of war by not obtaining compensation from the Japanese? Is not that a job now for this Government?

Dr. Moonie: Yes, I do recognise that. However, I believe that our policy is right. Although it produces disappointment, I will stand by it.

Mr. Nicholls: If the Minister feels as badly about having to make his speech as we do about having to listen to it, he should realise that it would make a great resignation speech in a moment or two.
I have done a lot of work with the national association representing former prisoners of war, and have met a great many men who were prisoners of the Germans. Some were confined in harsh conditions, but I have never met any prisoners of war from the German theatre who say that they would want part of any compensation that might be given to prisoners of war from the far east theatre. They recognise what the Minister does not—that the circumstances of the far eastern prisoners of war are unique. Given the strength of feeling expressed even in this short debate, will he not agree to reconsider the matter? If this is really to be the last word on the matter, listening to it has been a distressing experience.

Dr. Moonie: The hon. Gentleman brings his peculiarly repellant personality to a very important issue.
We welcome the chance to continue discussions with the Royal British Legion about other ways to look after the special needs of the far eastern prisoners of war. I am therefore pleased to say that I and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are to meet Legion representatives in April, and that we will discuss the matter fully with them.
However, I must repeat that the Government have concluded that it would not be right to change the policy on the matter of compensation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Seven o'clock.